The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-06-25 00:00:00

4

-74=57:7;g7T1::11

•.

,

PARLIAMENTARY INTELLIGENCE.

..
.

--50...—.
HOUSE OF LORDS, Fasnar, hiss ft.
Lord SUFFI ELD said, as he had not bees perfectly understood
vesterday, in adverting to the subject of the removal of the Assizes
from Thetford to Norwich, he felt it necessary to allude to it again.
The Judges to wboin the question had been referred, had not as.
signed any reason why the alteratioh ought not to be made ; nut-
withstanding that the Alagisintes of Norfolk had made out a very
strong ease ; unless. indeed, it could be called a reason, that the
Judges objected to travel thirty miles further on the Circuit. The
Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack (whose courtesy on
this, as em all occasions, he (Lord Suffield) was bound to acknow-
ledge, had said, that he would apply to theJudgcs for a statement
of their reasons, and communicate them to him, in meth that they
might be communicated to the Magistrates of Norfolk, to whom the
matter was of eery great importance.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE presented a petition from the
owners and occupiers of land, and tradesmen of Worsibridge„ in
the county of Suffolk, against the odniissiou of Bonded Corn under
the Distillery Act—Laid on the table.
Lord DACRE said he bad a petition to present from a Gentle--
man of very great respectebility—a Gentleman, whose character
alone would make him satisfied of thelruth of the allegations that
petition contained ; but as he (Lord Deere) always felt reluctant ,
to make any statements, either in the House Of elsewhere, that'
must affect the character of any individual. on the testimony of a
single person, no matter hem hiiir in rank or how respectable be
might be, he had made inquiries into the circumstances meted in
the petition, and had found them to be correct. The petition Sc.
cured a Clergyman of the Church of Eneland of the grossest inde-
cency and immorality. and prayed thelr Lordships to institioe
such proceedings sunlight put an end to scandal such as was de-
tailed in that petition. He would not. indeed he could not, state
to their Lordships all the instarcee of disgraceful conduct. and foul
immorality, charred agatmc the person alluded to—suffice it, that
about the year 1814 or IRIS, a Dr. Free come to reside as Rector
of the parish of Sutton, in the county of Bedford, and shortly after
that,period was guilty of ca duct almost too gross and too immoral
to conceive. Proof of this foul and disgraceful conduct was home-
diaiely adduced. In various ways, by witnesses and by the number
,of hie natural children. The prefeeessor of the Right Reverend
Prelate opposite (the Bishop of leIncoln) bad interfered, and had
obliged the parishioners to point ooh to the Diocesan the con-
duct of this Clergyman. The Right Reverend Prelate who
was now beibre him had instltuted proceedings against him,
and in the Court of Arches the Learned Judge who presided
bad admitted the conduct of this person to be infamous, but had
' decided that by the 27th George 111, proceedings against a person
for incontinence could not be held unless within eight months after
the commission of the act. The Learned Judge could not say in
what light persons In holy orders were to be considered by this ,
Act, and this question now temained to be decided by the Court of
hing's Bench. The parishioners were naturally indignant at the
scenes they were so frequently in the habit of witnessing, and they
efrnestly prayed their Lordships to enact such measures as should
enable them to take proceedings against this individual ; if rot by
enlarging the period oflimitation, by some other means that might
give then relief. It might perhaps be premature in him (Lord
Deere) to say what means might be suggested for this purpose. He
should hesitate before he recommended any couree; but he hoped
their Lordships would adopt some means or other to put an end to.
s eh disgraci.ful scenes as those detailed in the petition. He hoped
that during the ensuing Session some ptopnsition would come from
some Learned Prelate, in whose hands he should be glad to see the
matter placed. He would hot move that the Clerk read the petition
at length, because the allegations were too disgraceful and indecent,
to be heard.
The petition of Montague Burgoyne, Esq., of Sutton. In the
county of Bedford, on behalf of himself and several other
pstishionera, praying that the moral conduct of the Rev. Edward
Dax Fere, Reetur of Sutton, in the said county, might be loquired
into, was then read.
The Bishop of LINCOLN said, that as this petition originated
in his diocese, and as the Noble Lord (Dare) had alluded to him,
he felt it necessary to address a few words to the House. No
words could be too strong to describe the gross immorality of the
individual whose case was then before their Lordships, ana it was
his (the Bishop of Lincoln's) most anxious wish that some remedy
might be suggested which, not only in this instance, but in all
similar instances, would empower the Bishop to bring such
offenders to a justly merited punishment. Soon after he had been
appointed to the See the case stated in the petition, with all its
aggravated circumstances, was laid &efore him by the parishioners,
and he had done all in his power to punish the of nder in his
Court, but had found that he could do nothing. Ile had then
disected his Archdeacon to do all he could to remove the evil, but
he also had failed. Ile had then nothing left but to bring the
matter into the Court of Arches, where it now was. It would ill
become him to say anything as to his having involved himself in
considerable expense. The situation he now held called upon him,
and made it his bounden duty, to meet all such cases in the way
he had met this • but he felt it necessary to observe that it was
rather a hardship that Bishops should be driven to an expense
little short of 4 or 6001., because their power over their Dioceses
was found to be inadequate to meet the evil. Ile sincerely wished
that some measure might be proposed. which should enable the
House to put • stop. as far as possible, to such acts as those
alluded to; for it must be evident to every one that the difficulties
which lay in the way of prosecution was a sort of encouragement to
such condoct. Thin was not a time when persons. who held the
high and responsible situation he now held, ought in any way to
relax their exertions—when their conduct was at freely commented
unon, although they wished to do more than they really could.
He fele it bis duty to express his thanks to the Noble Lord (Dacre)
for hating abstained front entering into the disgraceful and scandal-
ous circumstances detailed in the petition, which could only do
harm to the cause their Lordship* would advocate. He trusted
that their Lordships were fully impressed with the importance of
the subject, and the necessity of sluing something to prevent the
repetition of the evil.

EQUITABLE LOAN BILL.
The Order ofthe Day for the third reading of the Equitable
Loan Bill having been read,
The LORD CHANCELLOR should state what in his opinion
was really the object of the Bill. In doing this he should lay aside
the conduct of the individuals connected in the matter before the
execution of the deed, and look at the question as it stood at pre-
sent. The public were told that the object of the measure was a
charitable institution to relieve the poorer close' front the harsh
claims made upon them by pawnbroters. This was not a ewe-
pentition which belonged to that Bill; quite the contrary t for it
was stated in the deed which had been executed what its true
objects were. The preamble said that certain irdividuals had
' formed a society and hail subscribed, or might subscribe. a sum
of money to make loans on carious objects of property below ten
pounds, and to take a lower interest than pawnbrokers. Now, in
it was proposed to embisly a number of persons, who might
amount to 700, to compete with individuals in the market, but not
ultimately for the benefit of the public; for, after having driven
those individuals out of the market. they might make and
impose what terms they pleased. The Noble and Learned
Earl then read various portions of the preamble and of the
deed, to show that the company intended to sell deposits like
pawnbrokers. If any proposition was ever made to sanction
usury under the pretence of something equitable, it was this:
fur if a man took more than 6 per cent. interest in any way. it
was usury under the statute. Then were the 7,000 sharehold-
ers to be considered guilty of usury ? No ; by the Bill, their
clerk alone was to be guilty of it. Then how was the judgment to
be enforced in civil actions. (for the Bill did not admit of criminal
ones) against the clerk? After be had been ten or twelve months
in prison. what wax to be done with the company ? Then also this
Company was not to be confined to a local existence in London. It
was to become • general shop of consignees front consignors, not
only in Ilrgland, but in all the world. and there was not one word
in the Bill to compel it to continue the business of pawnbroking,
which formed in. p..tenro 22 tt .•iO9. one month after the
Act should have passed I It was therefore for theft Lordships to
consider, whether on a preamble which did not state one word
of the real purposes for which the company was funned, they
would institute a body to exist on the principle of being the
consignee of persons of property not only in this country, but
in all the world, and with no other means of punishing its mem-
bers, if they brought themselves under the Usury Act, except
that of punishing the poor clerk, who would be as innocent as he
(the Lord Chancellor) himself. If this Bill were passed, there
would be a revival of those anita in equity springing from the
practice of young men buying property at an immense price nn
credit at one end of this city, aid pawning or selling it at the other
tor less than its value. If this were to be the ease, their Lordships
must take care to place in the Bill that principle of equity, that if
rung men bought on credit on purpose to pawr or to sell, what-
ever price was given at one end of the town, they should be corn-
pelted to pay no more than what was given at the other. The at-
tempt was an invasion of the Act of Usury; it was calling on
Parliament to establish the company in matters not mentioned in
the preamble, whilst the day after they might drop the business of
pawnbroking. The House had on its table a Bill to repeal the Bth
of Geirge L (the Bubble Act) and he dial not mean to object to its
repeal, because it prohibited rothing which was not already pro-
hibited by the common law of the land. But whether it were re-
pealed or not, he defied the ablest men in this country-4ind these
who had drawn the present deed were evidently able ones—to get
rid of this, that without a charter from the Crown, or an Mammon-
tion by Parliament. the law of England, as it was administered in
the Courts of Law tied Equity, was not sepal to enforce the oblige.
tions of any deed ; and it was his decides] opinion that all partnik-
ships, the obligations of which could not be enfoeced by the laws,
were Illegal. lie would be glad to know what was to make
this company legal and indeed he could not find by any of the
clauses of the Bill whether there was any intention at all el making
it legal. He also begged tbase Noble Lotus who were at home
to-night, and who meant to patronize the Bill, to point out here the
company wail proceed against strangers or against its oan mem-
bers ? The Bill did j.of contain one word to make those who were
eon:then this day liaile for any judgment which might are obtained
in %mune against them, it' by that time they had sold their
shares and given plate to others. If the clerk were sued, and the
clerk could nut pay. then thelsueing party would only be so much
the worse tin having sued. It was stud that execution might
err taken against any member; but the means of doing so
were not given. Let their LorthhipS determine whether what
was, and what had been the law, that partnership, were, not
to consist of more titan a limited number of individuals, Were
or were not to be adhmed to. Under all the circumstances of
the ease, ha should act on his own opinion of the measure, and move
that the Bin be read a third time this day three months.
Lord DA CR E said. although he warn unable to contend in legal
`argument with the Noble and Learned Lord who bad just sald:ened

;RF

• . .
. •

N

f . .
.. . \ .4
•
• . .
THE BRITISH PRESS.

the House, he felt it necessary to trespass on the attention of their
Lordships for a few minutes. while he endeavoured to convince
them of the importance of the present Bill. The very preamble of
this Bill had been understood by the Noble and Learned Lord in
very different sense to what he (Lord Deere) uncierstoo I it. The
very fact that this Bill was cakutated to benefit the pit blic by ad..
vancing small sums of money, especially to the lower classes, at a
rate of Interest 9.0 per cent. less than was taken by the pa wnbrokers,
was an argument why their Lordships should pass the !dill ;
tient in his estimation to induce their Lordships to do it . With re.
spect to the loan branch, the Noble and Learned Lord hod said, that I
although they advanced money only at ft Pee cent. as I hey intended
is charge also for warehousing, kc. they laid themset yes open to a
charge of usury. But if they did sa, and were guilty of such an
act, their guilt would be determ'nel by a jury of then countrymen;
and if a verdict were obtained against them, there were several
clauses In the Bill which made every individual of the Company
liable to the punishment, either in his person or his pt operty. The
clauses relative to the partnerships, were copied iron i an Act en.
titled•" An Act for the better regulation of the Pie :tnerahips of
Bankers in Ireland." This Act had been rimed by their Lord.
ships during the present Session, and by this Act the I tinkers sere
enabled to sue and be sued by their deputies. He fts't convinced
that great public advantages would follow the passing 1 if this Bill,
and lie should feel the deepest. regret if it were surround'7l by the
Noble and beamed Lord with so many technical di[; tculties as
would Induce their Lordships to reject it on the in anon for
its third reading.
The House then divided, when there appeared for the Amend-
ment--
Ayes . . Nnes . . 14
31sjority in favour of the Amendment . 13
The Bill was consequently lost.
COURTS OF KING'SIIk.NCH, EXCHEQUER. AND Cll3l.
MON PLEAS BILLS—ABOLITION OF THE SALE OF

OFFICES.
The Califll of King's Bench, Exchequer, and Common NMI
Bills were %everallr corn fitted, and the Reports receiver!.
EXCISE DUTJES AND DRAWBACKS ACT.
The Esc,se Duties swil Drawbacks Act went through a Com-
mittee, and was committed sad reported.
IRISH BANK TOKENS AND CURRENCY ASSIMILA-
TION.
The Irish Bank Tokens and Currency Msimilstion Bill was
committed, and the Revert received.
JUDGES' SALARIES.
The Judges' Salaries Bill went through a Committee, and was
reported.
REMUNERATION TO PERSONS HOLDING HIGH
OFFICIALOFFICES.
The Bill for remunerating persons holding high official situa-
tions was committed and reported.
VICE-CHANCELLOR AND MASTER OF THE ROLLS.
The Vice-Chancellor's and 31sster of the Rolls Salaries Bill
went through a Committee and was reported.
UNIVERSITIM' POLICE BILL

The UniverSlifee Polio Bill went through a Com mittse, and the
Report was received.
PRIVATE BILLS..
The Bill to regulate the taittticm of costs in the cave of private
Bills, was read a second time. and ordered to be committed.
PARTNERSHIP socie'nEs—(SCOTLAND).
The Partnership Societiev iScotland) Bill was read a second
time. and ordered to be committed.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the House
adjourned at SEvEx o'CLocc until to-morrow.

SOUSE OF Co3lsloislS, FRIDAY, JUNE 24.
..--
MISTtEPRESHNTATION.
Mr. F. BUXTON said, thet in presenting a petition he would
take the opportunity of mentioning, not so much to complain or. as
to correct • misrepresentation in • morning paper as to what he
had said in the debate yesterday evening. In that report he was
made to state that a letter had been written by the Abolition of
Slavery Society with which he was connected, requesting the ads.
sionaries to inform the Satiety of the state of the negro population
in their•respective missions. Now the fact was, that he Muldis-
tinctly stated he never had any communication whatever With the
missionaries since he tool up the question of the Slave Trade in
Parliament. It was reported too by that paper and others that the
people of Barbadoes had subscribed three-fourths of the sum re-
quired to rebuild the chapel after it was destroyed. This was also
inaccurate; for the people of liarbadoes had never subseribed one
single sixpence.
The petition from Wailingford, in Berkshire. praying for Par-
liamentary Reform, •sad an amendment of the Bribery Oath, was
then read and laid on the table.
CONDUCT OF A MAGISTRATE..

—.........._ ... ._ ....____ ___ _ _
Mr. BROUGHA3I, in a very low tone, so low indeed as to be
almost inaudible, presented a petition from a Magistrate of Cam-
bridgeshire, named George Milner, complaining of a statement or
penition (we gould not collect which), made bra person ranted
Haynes, respecting his conduct as a Magistrate in refusing to take
bail for a trifling offense: The petition systed that the petitioner
conid not possibly commit such an egregious error. mamas be
was not only a barrister of many years' standing, but had also been
frequently Chairman of tire Quarter Sessions; so that irwes to be
presumed he had at least as much knowledge of the law es would
protect him !Rom suchan error.—The petition was then laid oa the
table.
APOTHECARIES BILL.
On the motion of Mt. BROUGHAM, the Apothecaries Bill
was read a third time and passed.
JOURNALS COMMITTEE.
Mr. BANKES brought up the Report of the Committee ap-
pointed to arrange the Index to the Joumabi. The Hon. Member
moved that it be printed, and gave notice of his intention to take
the Report into consideration nit Monday next,
MISCONDUCT OF A CLERGYMAN.
Mr. J. Smith said he had a petition to present from a Gentleman
of high honour and unimpeachable integrity, well known to many
Members of that House—Mr. Montague Burgoyne. That Gentle-
man complained, in the petition, of the conductor the Rev. Edward
Free, Rector of the parish of Sutton, in Bedford, of which perish
the petitioner was one of the Churchwardens. It was very painful
to him (Mr. Smith) to be compelled to detail the several instances
of misconduct which were contained in the petition, but the facts
were so well known in the county where they took place that he
felt, although the individual had not an opportunity of an.
steering the accusations, that he was staring only that which was
strictly true. Some of the ads of that unhappy individual were of
a nature so gross and revolting that he really could rot mention
them in the House, but ne would juat say, that he had. different
times. five bastard children, by different prisons—one in 13, one
it
in 1814, and a accord in the same year, one again in 0, and
one in 1817. In addition to these acts of incontinency Oleic were
various seta of brutality and cruelty, in the highest degree dia-
-1 graceful to any man, but more particularly so to a Alini•zer of the
Church of England. One of these was the beating of a servant
woman, named Maria Mackenzie, who was then pregnant by him,
to such a degree of violence that she miscarried. In 'addition to
this, there were various other disgusting acts, such as using lode.
cent expressions. carrying about obscene hooks, and offensively sli-
mming his person. which he would not insult the feelings of the
House by dwelling upon : but to such an extent had he carried his
Infamous conduct that every single individual, of any respectability
and character, had deserted his church; and out of a pariah con.
mining at one time 3159 souls, th«re were not, when this indivi.
dual chose to perform Divine Services-for it was not always that he
did do it—more than 10 people at any time assembled in his
church, and those only children and old women. He had thus
shortly stated some of the fact* of this cast, and he would now
explain why he had considered it a matter of public duty to present
this petition. Great as the offences of this person had been against
public decency, and injurious as they must be to the cause of
morality and religion, still there were some legal obatacles, he
was sorry to say, to any speedy determination of the complaints
which had been lodged against him in the Court of his diocese;
for although his Bishop hod, at an expend of 50d or 600 pounds,
endeavoured to „proesaz oetttence against him ; and although
the case had been proven the Court of Motes, and admitted by
the individual himself to be true, still it appeared that by the
Att of the 27th Geo. 111. no person in holy orders could be
punished for incontioence unless the prosecution was commenced
within eight months from the commission of the offence; and It
was therefore to be feared that the appeal which this person had
lodged In the King's Bench, against the decision of the Court of
Arches would be allowed, and that the pariah would be still tor-
merited with chi, most unworthy Minister: lie hoped that no one
could suppose he had the slightest intention to east any reflections
on the character of the Church of England or its Al iniaters. The
deprivation of such • person, disgracing . the character of the
Clergy and the country, could only he considered a benefit to
that Church in which he was a solitary excep:ion. The late
Bishop and the present had both been greatly troubled in their
endeavours to free their diocese from such an unworthy member;
' and it was to be feared, that unless some measures were taken to
amend the law upon the subject, those endeavours would prove
vain. He would txpeet the Right Hon. Secretary for the Horne
Department, who had directed his attention to various other
parts of our law within) much benefit to the country. to examine
the state of she law oh this subject, and devise some remedy for
what must be admitted to be a serious evil. The petition prays
that this honourable House will so far amend the Act of
the 27th of George HI. as to render Clergymen punishable
1 for offences against public morals and decency, without any pro.
bibitlon with regard to time.
Mr. Secretary PEEL said he had never in his life /mid of the
1 name of the unhappy person mentioned in the petition, notwith.
*landing the alleged notoriety of the case. He was, however, fully
aware of the respectability of the petitioner, and that he would not
latter any thing which he did not believe to be correct. It must be,
however, tAt that among a body so numerous as the clergymen of
tie Church of F.ngland it was not a trotter of surprise if there
should be tome persons whose conduct might be objectionable.
The general exemplary character of that church. however, rendered
the particular instances the more glaring to the eye of the public
Of the charges laid against this person he knew Bottling, but he
would not hesitate to say, that it' it turned out upon iriptiry the: he
had been guilty of such actions as were attributed to him, that he
was totally unworthy of filling the situation he at present occupied.
He was not acquainted with the state of the case on this subject,
but as he bad been appealed to he would make inquiry on the sub-
ject, and if it tweed out that the law threw impediments in the
the way of prosecution, which had been represented, he would, if
an alteration could be made consistent with justice to individual
character, willingly consent to it. In the present case. however,
as he understood that there were some suits pending, he hoped the
Hnn. Member would aLstain from moving the printing of his
petition, lot it *night be In any way an interference with the atlini-
ni•Aration of impartial justice.

•
• •

lk

•

~'..

i.

Mr. BROUGHAM *greed with the Right lion. Gentleman
in his reasons for not printing the petition, because there were suits
pending. He could not, however,-acquit the late Diocesan of great
supinettess and negligence in allowing siith enormities as were laid
to the charge of this man to pass unnoticed for the eight months
which formed the present-limit of legal proceedings. He was in
utter astonishment that any Diocesan could pas% it over with a
due regard to his public duty. Some rented! must be found for
the evil of having such a person administering the sacred functions,
as he found he still does. There was not a more honourable or
upright man on earth than Montague Burgoyne; and it was
much to be deplored that when he had gone through all the
difficulties of proving and exposing this man's enormities, he
should find his hands tied from any successful terminatioh of his
labours.
Mr. J. SMITH said, he had not thought of presenting such •
petition without taking care to ascertain that the facts were true.
Ahr. nurlintne had acted with the greatest delicacy to Mr. Free,
and even offered to allow him to retain the living, and pea °vet
huts conduct, if he would appoint a crate, and go sway from the
Place. All endeavours to bring him to a proper sense of his
conduct were, howeser, vain ; and he could really only say, that,
from all he had heatd, the wretched man must be either one of the
most deplorably and obstinately wicked. or eiselasane.
The petition was then laid on the table.
DEBENTURE STAMPS.
Mr. MAXWELL (of Renfrews moved for a Return of the
Stamps for Debentures issued io the year 1824.—Cardered.

S R11(3 OUNS BILL.
Mt. RIDLEY COLBORNE gave notice that he would, in
the next stage of the Spring Duna Bill, move the insertion of •
clause making it illegal to set opting guns by day.
- -

- _
MR. KENRICK.
Mr. DENMAN moved the order of the day for taking into eon-
sideration the petition against Mr. Kenrick.
So: e conversation having taken plate with regard to the course
which ought to be pursued,
The SPEAKER said, that if the witness Canine was only to be
called in far' the purpose of making a detailed statement to the
Hence, he apprehended there would be no necessity for his leaving
the Chair. If, however, the evidence was to be extracted from
rla,:n question by qnestion, and lion. Gentlemen were to use the
pm-i-ze of cross-examination, he thought the business could te
much better conducted in a Committee of the mhole House. All
would depend upon the course the Learned Gentleman (lie. Den%
man) might think proper to adopt. The /Pore should, however,
be aware that Canfor and Mr. Kenrick were both summoned, end
that it would he right that Mr. Kenrick or his Counsel should t
permitted to be ptcsent at the bar during the examination of the
witness.
Mr. DENMAN expressing his opinion that the House would
probably wish to elicit the math from the wittier by cross.
examination,
The Mouse, after a few words from Mr.' PEEL and Mr.
BROUGHAM. went into a Committee of•the 4bote Vane,. Mr.
R. Gomm* in the Chair.
The parties being then summoned tq appear; "
The witness, Murray Ceirlioreadviticed io,the bar; Kenrick
answering by his Colman, Mr. Gurney end llr. &Heal.
Confnr being examined by Mr. DENMAN, stated that he, in
last June, held a farm at Chsrlwnod Common, in Surrey. He lost
ROW • sheep' in May, amounting in number ,t 6 twenty, one of them
being a ram. ile commenced year& fee them, of course, and
found them. . .

The witness was here ordered to withdraw.
The ATTORNEY-G NERAIs objected to the witness re-
freshing his memory from the printed paper in hill hand.
Witness was then caned in and dewed to lay aside the paper.
The examination was continued by Mr. Doxstart —He found
the sheep miWestwood Common. five miles from Charlwood Com-
mon, from whence they were stolen. He did rot find the ram nor
all the sheep, only eleven of 'Mem. six ewes and five lambs. They
were marked in • very unusual manner with gag tar and gas
pi.ch—a manner so unusual that he had never seen any marked.sn
before. lie found the earn afterwards in • fielft belonging to a man
named Brle. with other sleep. but with its fleece shorn. He 1141/
William Bele ; asked him whtre he got the rain, and after some
conversaion, obtained from him an admission that he had it from
Westwood Common ; that he had shorn it, but not sold the wool •
and that it was Marked on the right side in the manner described.
He then asked to see the fleece, and upon being refused, inquired
the way to the nearest Magicrate's. That Magistrate, he was told,
was a Mr. Kenrick, a gentleman he had never seen or heard of
before. On Monday morning, about the middle of the day, he
went to Mr. Kenrick's house ; what day of the month it was he
could not retnember, but the month was June, this time twelve
menthe. On his going to the house, he saw a person whom he
afterwards found to he Mr. Kenrick's butler. That person, whose
name .is Adams, asked him what he wanted ? He told him he
wanted to see the Magistrate. Adams inquired for what purpose ?
He began to tell him his story, but on inquiry, and hearing he
was not 31y. Kenrick, himself, but only a servant, refused to say
more. Adams then '
toldhim that the time was put Mr. Ken-
rick's hours of business, and he could not see him. He then told
Adams what he wanted, and obtained admission to Mr. Kenrick.
To him he told his story, that ha had lost sheep, and traced the
possession of one of them. a ram, to a person named Bek, whose
premises he wished to search for the azece, and that for the purpose
of doing so he came to apply for a warrant and a constable, be-
cause the man would not give up the fleece, although he had pro.
posed to him so tio so. Mr Kenrick was then about to write
something, when Adams, who had been waiting in the room, went
out, and returned with a piece of paper, which he told Mr. Ken.
rick was the redular form of • search-warrant. Mr. Kenrick said
what he was going to write would answer the same purpose. Wit.
ness objected to a note of that kind, and said he wanted a regular
warrant and constable, and if he ffal not givellim one, he must go
to another Magistrate, and commit his Solicitors. Mr. Kenrick
Raid, don't talk to me about Solicitors, and'fiew into a very
great passion. Witness said he was sorry he had offended
him, and begged him to go on his own way. Mr. Kenrick then
gave him the bit of paper, which he said would do as well as
a search-warrant. The Christian name of Belt's father was
James, and of the son William. That paper he carried to Bele.
On the Tuesday following he applied to another Magistrate, Mr.
Burgess, in the vicinity of Mr. Kenrick. Mr. Burgess lived shout
three mile* distant from the house of Mr. Kenrick. He applied
lot a search-warrant to Mr. Borderer this maoistrate refused a
search-warrant on the ground (as we understood).that the business
had already been in the hands of Mr. Kenrick. He was advised to
repair again to Kenrick's house; he complied with this advice. and
was informed there that Bele had, in the mean while, been there,
and that the matter was referred to the arbitration of Mr. Nash and
of Mr. Neale; be had no part in appointing the arbitration ; both
of the referees were unknown to him. The result wf this arbitration
was, that it was decided the heist belonged to him (Canfor); they
signed a certificate to the effect that the fleet.* corresponded with
the fleece of his other sheep, and a:cordingly the ram was awarded
to him. He ('he witness) took the fleece to Mr. Kenrick's. to show
that the adiudica•ion had been made in his favour. On coming to
Mr. Kuria he was required to give up the note which Mr. K.
wrote to Bele; he refused to do so; Mr. Kenrick then said to his
servant Adams. *. I appoint you a special constable. take and
search him." lie (Mr. Canfor) would not submit to be searched
by hint ; lie remained there, but was not searched—Kenrick sitting
down. whilst Adams stood at the door. A constable then arrived,
who described himself as the pariah constable; on coining in, Ken-
r:ck addressed him, and sail. "that is your prisoner, meaning
him ( Mr. ('s -for). search him." On declaring himself to be con.
stable of the parish, although he did not tell his name, he (3lr
Canter) submitted to the search, and the constable took the
letter from him. Mr. Kenrick then directed hint to go about
his business. This he refused to do, until the fleece had been
sealed up, and until. he got a seal put upon it. It was
then delivered to the constable, and be (Mr. C.) departed. The
next step taken by him was to bring an anion flit-telly against
Mr. K. for his coriduc: towards him. The trial was appointed to
take place at Croydon last sessions; a compromise took place, and
consent taken to a verdict of 51. damages, together with all costs
and expenses attendant on the transaction. These expenses were
sot made god toJiim; halves absent front home a fortnight in the
prosecution of this business. Ile Could not say who reported awl-
compromise—perhaps those Gentlemen (counting to Mr. Gurney
and Mr. Bolland) may be better able to tell. (Much laughter.)
The direct examination here closed.
Mr. BROUOH A 111 suggested that the proper course now to
adopt was, that the Counsel for Mr. Kentick should have permis-
sion tot iFilltaluestion they might think proper to propose.
Cross-examined by Mr. Gonr:Ev—il'hat time did you call upon
Mr. Kenrick ?—ln the month of May.
What day ?—I do not remember the date; I cannot say the day
of the month. _ _

Did you not want to receive more money from Mr. Kenriek,
and did you not offer, on his giving you more money, to forego any
further proceedings ?—He was to pay all the costs and expenses,
which he did not do.
_ _ _

Did he not pay 1301. in costs ?—I do not know how much he
paid ; all 1 know is. that the agreement was not fulfilled, and that
I was not reimbursed for my expenses.
Did you not say, that if he did not comply with your demand,
you would tackle with him again?—The witness replied to the effect,
that he was not certainly prepared to putt up with any loss after tho
eompmruise which had been entered into.
Mr. HOLLAND declined putting any questions to the witness.
By 31e. PEEL.—Where did you find the ram ?—ln an open
fold.

How many cheep were in the fold P—l don't know what was the
number.

It's, there any attempt at concealment ?—Any person who se::t
to the fold might see the ram there.
Did you go there by accident, or had you an inducement to go
there ?—1 went there because I was informed the ram was there, by
a person who saw him taken off' the common, and I told Mr. Ken-
risk that I would prove the ram in Beles possession to be my pro-
perty, by a chain of evidence as clear as noon day.
flow do you know that the mark on your sheep eas unlike to that
of any other mark 7—The witness here detailed the peculiar nature
of the composition with which his sheep were marked.—The ram
was marked by a round smudge nark.
From whom did you hear that Bele had taken the ram off the
common 7—From a person who saw him.
What was his name I—Huggins.
To a few other questions, the witness replied, that be kept the
run for the pimp°. eof breeding; which, if sold, would not fetch
more than his. or thereabouts.

'T,

By the ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Mr. Kenriok's !loose is
about four or five miles from Westwood Common. I did
not mention Mr. Huggines mime to Mr. Kenrick. but told
him I could prove by an irresistible chain of evidence, that
licle bed taker, the ram, and that it was my property. Bug-
gins told me that be saw Cale leading turn by a string. 1

1 , .

. ,

IN, you think Mr. Kenri:k's holding the sitne'ion of a Judge In
Walcs renders your case more important ?—1 thought Mr. Kenrick
was not tit to ha:.g • man after neglecting his duty, by allowing a
person :charged stitb felotiy to get off
Hod you any wish to prevent the publication of his can in Ma
newspapers ?—I had not ; quite the contrary.
Don't you state that you have no pirsonal hostility to Mr. Kerr.
rick ?--Not one man in a hundred would have taken the business
so easily as I did.
1/id you eve: hear of Bela before that time P—l don't recollect
that I did. . . .

Dad you never tell your attorney to make such an O'er ?—Never.
No such erre was ever made on any part.
Have yoa any reason to believe that ycur attorney made Wei an
offer y-1 have no ressou to believe it.

Reexamined by Mr. DENMAN.—After the compromise was
made. were you told by your attorney what were the terms ?..—I was
told that I was to be athn ex nenseintheinntter. or in the costs.

Question from Mr. LOCKIIART.—IIad you ever employed
the tame attorney before?—Never.
The witness was here ordered to wt:Mrasr.

Tho ATTORNEY-GENERAL said thar was evidently no
connexion between the present case and that other case alluded to
by the Hun. and. Learned Gentleman. (Hear, hear.) It was
therefore unjust to contbund them. The Chairman hare
called upon Mr. Kenrick's Counsel to proceed, when they preferred
a written answer from Mr. Kenrick to the charges made aguittat
him.

.Ir. BROUGHAM suggested that Mr. lienriek's answer bLould
be presented to the House in tue shape of a petition.
Mr. secretary CANNING objected to the course of proceeding
proposed by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman. dcreouti
hint to suggest that the Counsel should read Mr. Ketnick's attso er
as part of his address. . .

~ • v,

do not know that file is an e...tisire farmer, or ea• tly
what quantity of land he farms, as I am a stranger in the manly.
Mr. Keswick did not tell me that thin was a proper subject for a
civil action ; that as liele claimed the rant to be his, and es I
claimed it to be mine, we should go to trial to tietarmive whose
property it really was; I told 3lr. Kit-old; every thing that paced
between Bele and me; Bele told me that he thought she um
was his, that some person had taken it ai.d marked it afresh ; that
circtinistarke I did not mention to Mr. Kenrick ; many questions
were proposed to roe by ,le. Kenrick, the precise nature of which I
do not eisetly remember. I was ready to prove the ram was mice,
and the mark it bore. and by the testimony of the permit fries
whom 1 bought it; I was not a party to any reference ;?Nash was
not named by me, neither was the otter referee. Neale was quite
unknown to me.
By Mr. BROUGHAM —Buggies did not see the sheep taken
off the common, but only sew hint Ittn,iitig the road, led by a per.
ton. The Alsip of mine, as well as the rant, were marked by •
large round smudge mark, dusky and dark. (in telling Bele,
when I hrought him the note from Mr. K•nrick, that be was in an
awkward situation, and that it wan well tor him he was. as I be-
tiered he was, a friend of Mr. Keirick, he replied that be did not
care either for me or Mr. Kertrick, but that lie was determined net
to give up the rant.
liv Mr. 31. A. TAYLOR—Adams did not ask me to sign any
paper before I raw Mr, Kenrick; I do not 'know whether the piper
he brought in in the presence of Mr. Kenrick was a real aearsh.
winvant'dr the cony of one.
By Sir R. W ILSON.—Although the mark had been removed
from the side of the ram, I think I tr.ight.have been able to disco-
ver and prove that it wan my psonntly.
By the SOLICITOR-GENERAL—Mr. Nash is, I believe. •
respectable person. ile is a ranter in the noighbourhood in which
he resides; I did not say any thing to irritate Mr. Kenrick ; it is
not my habit ; he was in a passion : all I said wit., that I MO for
a search-warrant. and wanted rine; I urged him to give it to ins,
but did not lilac any irritati,g language.
By Mr. GOULBURN.-I'he ram was originally on tho oonv.
mon of Chariwood.
And how came P. on the common of AVestwood N—dye, that is
what lam &axiom. to know. ( Much laughter.) There is a cod.
-tinned series of common fond Chariwood to Westwood.
Re-examined by Mr. Secretary PEEL—When Bets produce.
the Reece had you no doubt thstit watt yours?—None.
That it wis the tierce of your ram P—Yes.
Is it not usual to bind up the fleece with the marked wool ?--
Not at all.
p.4•lnitivt by Mt W. LAMB—How came yon to petition the
House of CominoiAP—Bacause I thought it was no use to carry
the case into a Court of Justice.
Siho wrote the petition for you ?-31y attorney : be wrote ail
petition according to my instructions.
Who are your attorneys?—Messrs. Watson and Broeghter,
Goltiemsquare.
Did you read the petition ?..-I
lirre you aware of its contents ?—I was.
If Mr. Kenrick had paid your full demand would you have given
up the buAllips ?—I believe I would.
Then was it because the demand was not paid that you petitioned
the House of Commons ?—lt was not entirely because the demand
wan not paid.
-Re-examined by Mr. BROUGHAM.—Did you offizt Mr.
Kenrick your deposition on oath did.
Did he take any depwition on oath ?—No.
Did you ever since this 'Mir employ Nash as a valuator I—No,
Ile-examined by Mr. Secretary PEEL.—Was the commons,
with Kenrick made by your direction ?—No.
When you heard of it were you dissatisfied?—No, I was not
dissatisfied, or I would not hare agreed to it.
You did agree to it, then P—l did.
You agreed to receive M. ?—Yes, and all expenses ; that was my
instruction to my Counsel.
Now what other situation in it that Mr. Kenrick holds. 'amides
being: Magistrate in Surrey P—l understand that he is a Judge in
\1 's les.

Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL.—Was the
compromise arranged between your Counsel and Mr. Kenrick P.--
Certainly, but I know nothing of it.
Who was your Counsel'-1 had Mr-Marryett and Mr. Thee-
siger.
Ichntergitermil-were proposed, did you communicate them to
Mr. Thewseer?—Certamly.
Afterwards did you see the Counsel arranging the terms P—l saw
thei4 cbininunicatill in Court.
Did you ace them with the terms of the compmmise T—No.
When diet you receive the money 7—What money P
Did yon not receive some money P—No.
fins not your Attorney P—l believe he has.
Where was the conversation when you exprtvved your dined,-
faction P-1 never expressed my dissatisfaction ; 1 don't care •
farthing about the money.
Did not the attorr.cy tell you that Kenrick pald the costs?-1 be-
lieve he did.
When P—l don't know. _

Can you tell within two months?—Nit
Did you receive a damages ?-11, attorney did; but I believe t
owed him something.
How long after the costs were paid did .ycu older your attorney to
draw up the petition ?—1 don't know.
Was it a month, or a for:night, or a week. nr a day P—l can't say.
Where do you live?—At Piurch.Rtreet, Newi.igton.
Where does ye-ar attorney live ?—ln Falcon-square, in the
City.
At which place did you give the instructions ?—I can't tell,
When was the petition first shos-n to you P—l can't any ;it wits
sent to rile. . .

......-
Throulh the Post-office ?—No, by one of the clerks.
Did you afterwards speak with the attorney upon it ?—z aid, is
Fatain.square.
When did you first propose to compromise the salon ll—Wit.
nem. indignantly, Me propose to co. promise !
Did not you ever propose to comproad•Ae it ?—Never.
Have you Limey sent any one ?—No, I never seat any ore to
compromise. . _

Mr. HENHAN said he did nut nii an to call any other witness..
It was of course competent for any other lint. Al runes to examine
witnesses. His ulterior object was, t.ftet Mr. hcrrick's Counsel
had examined their witnasses, to call witnesses o❑ the other ease.

I

kr. IIIIQUI:11 AM explained. Ile merely meant to suggest
that after tearing Counsel Toe Mr. Kenriek and witnesses no his
bel.alt, the House should resume and the peution be presented 14
the erdhary manner.
The CH AIRMAN then called upon Mr. Ken rieVs Counsel,
sad inquired if they had any thing to oiler.
Mr. GURNEY commenced by reading Mr. Kenrick's petition.
He spoke front under the gallery, and was therefore indistinctly
heard. Having gone through the petition, the Learned Council
briefly addressed himself to the Commiute. Ile commenced by
stating that Mr. Kenriek had intrusted his defence to him and his
Learned Friend Mr. Holland. Upon consideration they found that
the object of the action was to obtain the costs. and that a nomnisl
verdict was likely to be had by the plaintiff, which must carry with
it the costs. Under these circumstances, they sugrested to the
Counsel at the opposite side that 111 r. Keit:rick sho.thi pay the costs.
This proposition was accepted, they understood wiih the full ap-
probation of the plaintiff. The costs wire accordingly taxed by
the proper officer of the Court to the lull amount, and these costs
were paid by Mr. Kenria. It was not because • compromise had
been thus proposed and accepted, that a party should resort to the
House of Commons as • measure ut revenge. The Learned
Counsel then briefly adverted to the details of the OM. The man
charged with the felony was confesseelly a man of fair and upright
character. He insisted that the sheep acre his own—that -therein
11/.1 his own ; but that the mark was put en by some one else. He
did nut assume that the mark was his °a n. In contradiction to this
another man conies forvard and claims the sheep as his. He appli:s
for a search-warrant. which is not immediately given. He (the
Learned Counsel) held that warrants of searchrthould not be granted
rpan every occasion whet they are demanded. The liberty of the
subject and the sacredness of his dwelling should not be invaded
without sufficient reason. The Magistrate had a right to use his
discretion on the subject. If he was not allowed to use any judg-
ment on such • subject, where was the receasity of having gentle-
men of education placed in the commission of the peace ? Their
footmen could do the dot; as well, if Magistrates are to be deprived
of all discretionary power. He would ask, where was the neors-
si:y of bringing such a case before the House ? If a Illsgistrste acts
wrong, the law is open, and any person may resort to the Court of
King's Bench. lie mar move for an inhumation. or proceed to
indictment. The individual in the ease before the Committee con-
eels ed that he had sustained • civil injury ; he brought his action
and received compensation, to which he had himself consented.
Under these circumstances, he brings 1:3 case before tLe Howse.
complaining that justice had' not been done. but thudtz. of •
felony had been unjustly suppressed. The Learned.,
ted In
conclusion, humbly submitted, that codling had been done to
withdra'w the evidence, and thst the clisrge of felony had not bees
:supposed. Ile contended that Mr. Keaiick had exercised his fa t