The Sun.
London, England, 1865-05-05 00:00:00

The Edmunds Inquiry.

The select committee appointed to inquire into all
the circumstances connected with the resignation
by Mr. Edmunds of the offices of Clerk of the
Patents and Clerk of the Commissioners of Patents,
and with his resignation of the office of Reading
Clerk and Clerk of Out-door Committees in the
Lords, and also into all the circumstances connected
with the grant of a retiring pension to him by that
House, and to whom were referred several letters
and documents relating thereto (laid before the
House pursuant to an order of Friday, the 10th of
March), have made the following report, which was
laid on their lordships' table on Tuesday night.
After a narrative of the circumstances attending
Mr. Edmunds' resignation of his posts in the Patent-
office, corroborating that already given by the Lord
Chancellor, the committee say :

" They are compelled to express their regret that
he was allowed to resign, and thereby withdraw
himself from the impending inquiry before the Lord
Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellors. The Attor-
ney-General, indeed, stated that in his opinion it
was desirable at once to remove Mr. Edmunds from
his office, and that the acceptance of this enforced
retirement was preferable to the delay which must
have taken place in the inquiry. Notwithstanding
this high authority the committee are still of opinion
that the inquiry ought to have proceeded, and if
the charges which Mr. Edmunds had been called
upon to answer had been proved (as it will be pre-
sently seen that in the judgment of the committee
the principal part of them must have been), he
should at once have been dismissed, leaving it open
to future consideration whether ulterior proceedings
blight to be taken against him." _ _

The committee then discuss the several charges
against Mr. Edmunds in detail. The first charge
is—

" For having between the 23d day of August,
1853, and the present time, in concert and combi-
nation with Thomas Ruscoe, improperly caused to
be obtained and applied, partly to his own use,
and partly to the use of the said Thomas Ruscoe,
allowances of discounts to a large amount upon the
prices of stamps purchased from her Majesty's Stamp-
office, for use in her Majesty's Patent-office, such
stamps having been purchased with public moneys,
for which he, or the said Thomas Ruscoe, to his
knowledge, was accountable to her Maiestv."
ame tvnclusion of the committee is stated as fol-
lows :

" Mr. Leman, in his evidence, stated that at his
first interview with the Lord Chancellor, onJuly 27,
he said that he thought there was nothing in the
charge relating to the discounts, and that the atten-
tion of Mr. Edmunds need not be drawn to it. The
Lord Chancellor stated that he had no doubt what
he did say was, that the mere taking of discounts,
if the money was properly obtained for the purpose,
was a comparatively innocent thing, and that he
would not make it the subject of charge.' It is
highly improbable that the Lord Chancellor, in
speaking of the charge relating to the discounts,
should have meant to refer to the application of
public money for the purpose of obtaining the profit
as a matter not deserving of attention. It might
very well be that, as there was a distinct charge
against Mr. Edmunds of applying divers sums of
public money to his own use,' the Lord Chancellor
might have overlooked the fact that the latter part
of the first charge related to the misappropriation
of public money, and might have regarded it as con-
fined entirely to the allowances of discounts.' The
committee are of opinion that so much of the first
charge as relates to the purchase with public moneys
of stamps, upon which allowances of discounts were
obtained by Mr. Edmunds, is fully established by
the evidence."

The second charge preferred against Mr. Edmunds
is for having improperly retained in his hands or
under his control, between the 9th August, 1852,
and the month of July, 1864, without duly paying
the same over into her Majesty's Exchequer, divers
large sums of money received by him for fees on
patents, which ought to have been from time tol
time during that period paid by him into her Ma-
jesty's Exchequer.
The committee hold this charge fully proved.
They add :
" It might have been considered as some mitiga-
tion of the serious misconduct on the part of Mr.
Edmunds if the fact had been that the money paid
into the Patent-office account had remained un-
touched, though unaccounted for, during so many
years ; but that this was not the case will appear in
considering the third charge."
The third charge is for having, from time to time,
improperly caused to be transferred to the credit of
his private account with Messrs. Coutts and Co.,
bankers, from a separate account kept by him with
the same bankers for the public purposes of her
Majesty's Patent-office, and having applied to his
own use divers sums of public money for which he
was accountable to her Majesty.
This the committee also hold to be fully proved.
The fourth and last charge is for having impro-
perly retained in his hands, until some time after
the same had been made the subject of inquiry by
her Majesty's Commissioners of Patents, a sum of
£399 7s. 4d., part of a sum of £749 7s. 4d. paid by
or on behalf of one J. S. Smith, a clerk lately em-
ployed in her Majesty's Patent-office, for the pur-
pose of making good public moneys in the said
Patent-office, which had been by the said J. S.
Smith improperly applied to his own use.
The committee are willing to give Mr. Edmunds
credit for the truth of his statement that he had
forgotten this sum of £399 7s. 4d. And in this case,
as the charge of improperly retaining the money in
his hands must be intended to allege that he wilfully
and intentionally did so, they consider that this
charge has not been substantiated.
The committee inquiring what check there was
upon Mr. Edmunds, discovered that there really was
no check upon him—no one responsible for seeing
that he made affidavits and paid sums into the
Treasury, and, quoting a statement by the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer as to the deficient state of
the law, they recommend that some steps should be
taken to remedy it.
The committee then refer to the second report of
Messrs. Greenwood and Hindmarch, but abstain
from expressing any opinion of their own as to the
additional charges against Mr. Edmunds, as they
may be the subject of future investigation.
After narrating some proceedings as far back as
October and November last, the committee narrate
the final circumstances of Mr. Edmund's resignation,
and express their opinion as follows :
" On Saturday, the 4th February, Mr. Leman,
who had frequently recommended Mr. Edmunds to
send in his resignation, had another interview with
the Lord Chancellor at his lordship's house. He
took with him the following paper, signed by Mr.
Edmunds :

" L. E. proposes to resign the office of reading
clerk in the usual manner, viz., a petition to the
House to grant him the usual retiring allowance
to which he is entitled for his services. _ _

" ' That the petition will be presented on Tues-
day at the meeting of the House.
" 'To ask the Lord Chancellor, under these cir-
cumstances not to move for a special committee, or
at least to postpone such motion.
" 44th February, 1865.

" L. E.'

" Mr. Leman siated that he handed this paper to
the Lord Chancellor to read, and that he read it
and said, ' If the resignation take place between
this and Friday, I will throw no obstacle in the way
of the pension.' Mr. Leman then said to the Lord
Chancellor,:' My lord, would your lordship object
to Mr. Edmunds taking his seat in the usual way at
the table of the Lords ?' He said, I shall take no
notice of it if he does.' The Lord Chancellor's re-
collection of the conversation with Mr. Leman upon
this day is that he stated most distinctly to Mr.
Leman that he thought the resignation was the best
thing Mr. Edmunds could do, that it would relieve
him from the duty imposed upon him of being Mr.
Edmunds' accuser, and that he would throw no
obstacle in the way of his having a pension.
That he told him so distinctly, but his lordship
thinks with this addition, that he should not
feel that he was under any obligation to
pursue Mr. Edmunds before a Parliamentary
committee. His lordship further stated to the
committee ' that he would not have proceeded at
all unless he had been told that his public duty re-
quired it. That was the question that he put to
Lord Cranworth and Lord Ki_ngsd own. That he
would not have proceeded at Dahl the Cabinet had
not told him that it was his duty to do so. But that
duty was only to take care that in the face of these
charges Mr. Edmunds should not remain an officer
of the House of Lords. That whether he was right
or whether he was wrong, the rule he laid down to
himself was this, that while he remained an officer,
it being his duty to bring the charges before the
House of Lords, he must do so ; but when he ceased
to be an officer, he thought he bad no longer any
such duty.' His lordship further said, '.?.row that
is the only time when I had any conversation about
a pension. What I told Mr. Leman was exactly
what he says, that I would throw no obstacle in
the way of the pension. I never held out to Mr.

Leman, or to any individual in any manner, direct
or indirect, that I would do anything beyond being
passive and silent until I was called upon.' On the
6th February Mr. Leman wrote a letter to the Lord
Chancellor's secretary in these words :—' Will you
have the goodness to request the Lord Chancellor
to postpone any motion in the House of Lords till
Monday or Tuesday, instead of Friday. lam de-
sirous of having a further communication from Mr.
William Brougham or Lord Brougham (who were
then at Cannes), before anything is done in the
House of Lords ; and I cannot depend on getting
a reply to my letter by Friday.' To which the
secretary answered on the same day, The Lord
Chancellor desires me to say that he is willing
to postpone action in the house until Monday
next (the 13th of February), but his lordship
cannot approve of Mr. Edmunds attending the
house in the interval, so that you had better take
care that he does not do so.' Mr. Leman states
that he had the greatest difficulty to persuade
Mr. Edmunds to resign at all. That he did not
finally make up his mind to resign his office until
the 13th February, and he did so in consequence of
what the Lord Chancellor said in an interview which
Mr. Leman had with him on that day. There was
some doubt at first as to the exact time of the day
at which this interview took place, but Mr. Leman
afterwards cleared it up by reference to his own
memoranda' and fixed it to have been between 1 and
2 o'clock.. He says that the Lord Chancellor told
him that he had consulted the Government, and
that if Mr. Edmunds' resignation was not in Sir
John Lefevre's hands by 4 o'clock on the following
day, he would move for the committee, and lay the
reports on the table of the House of Lords.' Mr.
Leman says his impression was that Mr. Edmunds
was wavering as to his resignation until he told him
what the Chancellor had said at this interview.
Upon his at last consenting to resign, his petition
was prepared in the usual form, and sent by Mr.
Edmunds to the Lord Chancellor on the 14th Fe-
bruary, with a letter in these words I respect-
fully request your lordship to present to the House
of Lords the enclosed petition, expressing my wish
to retire from the offices of Reading Clerk and Clerk
of Private Committees, and praying their lordships
to grant me such retiring allowance as their lordships
may think fit.' The Lord Chancellor says that he
received the petition just as he was taking his seat
on the woolsack. That the petition was presented
by him, assuming it to be a common petition for re-
signation, and that he did not advert to the fact
when he presented it that it contained a prayer for a
pmicion. ' But,' his lordship adds, lam bound to
say this, that if I had observed that, I should have
presented it notwithstanding.' It will not have
escaped observation that there is a material
difference in the statements of Mr. Leman and of the
Lord Chancellor as to the promise made by his lord-
ship with respect to the pension. Both agree as to the
words used, that the Lord Chancellor' would throw no
obstacle in the way of the pension;' but Mr. Leman
states that on each occasion the terms of the Lord
Chancellor's assurance were, 'if Mr. Edmunds would
resign, he would throw no obstacle in the way of
his pension ;' while the Lord Chancellor says that,
when it was communicated to him that Mr. Ed-
munds intended to resign, then he did, as Mr.
Leman says, voluntarily and of his own accord say,
' I will throw no obstacle in the way of his having
a pension.'
" The Lord Chancellor has stated to the com-
mittee that after the tender of Mr. Edmunds' resig-
nation, it was no longer his intention to lay the
papers on the table, and that they would not have
been laid before the House if public attention had
not been drawn to the subject out of doors. And
his lordship added, I beg the committee for a
moment to understand that, from the beginning to
the end, I have acted on this principle, that I would
do nothing against Mr. Edmunds but what public
duty required. I asked Lord Cranworth and Lord
Kingsdown whether my duty required his discharge,
if the alleged facts were true. They said " Yes ;"
then I directed the inquiry to go on. When I found
that the House of Lords was the tribunal, I asked
the Cabinet, Is it my duty to bring it in before the
House of Lords ? Not whether I was justified in
doing it, but it is my bounden duty to it ? They
said " Yes," but that was only in order that the
House of Lords might no longer have that officer;
and when that officer retired, I then determined for
myself, rightly or wrongly (I take all the responsi-
bility of it), that I would not interfere actively to
prevent his having a pension.'

" The committee cannot coincide with the Lord Chan-
cellor in the view thus taken by him of his public duty. In
their opinion it was incumbent on him, who presented the
petition of Mr. Edmunds to the House of Lords, in somo
manner to have apprised the Parliament-office committee
of the circumstances under which the resignation of Mr.
Edmunds of the clerkship had taken place, and with which
the Lord Chancellor was officially acquainted, and not to
have left them to decide the question cf a position with no
clearer light than that which could be derived from vague
and uncertain rumours. The committee have, however,
no reason to believe that the Lord Chancellor was in-
fluenced by any unworthy or unbecoming motives in thus
abstaining from giving any information to the committee.
The committee have examined the Chairman of Committees
as to the knowledge by the members of the select commit-
tee (which he attended) of any circumstances which might
disentitle Mr. Edmunds to a pension. He stated that there
was 'a general knowledge, or a general impression on the
part of most of the members of the committee, that in con-
sequence of certain pecuniary transactions in which Mr.
Edmunds had been concerned in the Patent-office, he had
resigned his appointment in it." But,' he added, the peti-
tion was presented to the house without observation, and
no order was made directing the committee to inquire into
it. We had only the facts stated in the petition which was
referred to us, and upon those facts we had to inquire what
pension Mr. Edmunds should be considered entitled to.' It
is to be regretted that the committee did not consider it
to be their duty under the circumstances to act upon their
general knowledge or impression so far as to interpose
some delay before the question was finally disposed of in
favour of a pension which, had the circumstances been
fully known to them, would probably not have been re-
commended."

The committee then consider the incidental ques-
tion of the £3OO a year, which Mr. Edmunds had
stated was deducted out of his salary as clerk of the
patents. As the result of their investigations, it ap-
pears only necessary to state :
" That a mortgage was granted by Lord Brougham in
1811 over his estate, in order to raise money for his brother
James, who was in possession of the estate, which mort-
gage was assigned in 1827 to trustees, of whom Mr. Ed-
munds was one, for the benefit of his sisters.

" That Lord Brougham knew nothing of the assignment
or subsequent transactions, for many years entrusting the
management of his property to Mr. James Brougham, and
afterwards to Mr. Win. Brougham.

" That when Mr. Edmunds was appointed to the office
of Clerk of the Patents (salary (400), Mr. Jas. Brougham,
who was the medium of communication between him and
Lord Brougham, directed him to pay or account for £3OO
of the salary to him (James Bougham)—who also told him
that the office was intended for the eldest son of Mr. John
Brougham, then deceased, another brother of Lord
Brougham, but that as he was not old enough to hold it
himself, he was to take it in the meantime in trust for the
benefit of the widow and five children of John Brougham.

" That at Mr. James Brougham's death the £2OO was
retained by Mr. Edmunds in payment of his sisters, and
£lOO was paid to Mr. William Brougham.
" Mr. William Brougham, however, denies all knowledge
of how the £2OO was applied, but the committee cite a
great many cireumstances, lead* them to the conclusion
that he was cognisant of the whole arrangement."
The committee say in conclusion :

" It thus appears that at the time of the appointment of
Mr. Edmunds to the office of Clerk of the Patents, it was
agreed between him and Mr. James Brougham that £3OO a
year out of the salary should be applied either for the
benefit of the family of John Brougham, or should be avail-
able towards the liquidation of the debts of Jas. Brougham.
And it is also proved that in the year 1863, when it was
proposed that Mr. Edmunds should resign his offices of
Clerk of the Patents and Clerk to the Commissioners of
Patents, there was an understanding between him and Mr.
William Brougham, that if Mr. William Brougham's son
should be appointed to succeed to the office, a similar de-
duction should be made from his emoluments, to be applied
in the same manner as the £3OO a year which had been then
charged upon Mr. Edmunds' salary for a period of 30 years.
So far as the public is concerned, what was the actual
agreement as to the application of this £3OO a yearis wholly
immaterial. Any private arrangement that a portion of
the salary of a public officer which is the remuneration for
his services shall be applied to the benefit of any other
person is a grave offence against public morality, and de-
serves the severest condemnation.

" All the witnesses concur in stating that these trans-
actions took place without the slightest knowledge of
them on the part of Lord Brougham. That he was no
party to the arrangement for the appropriation of any
part of the salary of the Clerk of the Patents in any
other manner than for the sole benefit of Mr. Edmunds.
That he was kept in entire ignorance of all the circum-
stances connected with -the payment of the interest upon
the mortgage of 1811, ind the transfer of that mortgage to
trustees for the sisters of Mr. Edmunds, and that he had no
means of arriving at the facts, as he had resigned the entire
management of his affairs first to his brother, James
Brougham, and afterwards to Mr. William Brougham, the
latter of whom has expressly sworn that he never communi-
cated any information to Lord Brougham upon the subject.
Mr. Edmunds, who lived upon the most confidential terms
with Lord Brougham, and was for a long course of years an
inmate in his house, also states positively that Lord
Brougham knew nothing of the arrangements respectinghis
office, nor of the application of any portion of his salary,
otherwise than for his own benefit ; and Lord Brougham him-
self in an affidavit, Which the committee consented to receive,
satisfied
appointed
xr unable.r tEodamt tuenndds,
sulpvoenarsin
beingthese words—'
clerk of the patents, the salary being ,400 a year. I made

the appointment freely and without any condition, or stipu-
lation, or understanding whatever. I derived, or received,
or expected to receive, no benefit or advantage whatsoever
from the appointment. If it is stated or suggested that I,
or any member of my family, received or derived any bene-
fit or advantage from the appointment, such statement or
suggestion is, as I firmly believe, utterly false, as with re-
spect to myself I know it to be. I read in the Times of the
10th March that a yearly payment of £3OO had been made
by Mr. Edmunds for interest on a mortgage and otherwise,
by which I was directly or indirectly benefited. I utterly
deny all knowledge of any such transaction, and of any and
every part therof.
" The committee, in conclusion, trust that they may,
without departing from their proper functions, be permitted
to express their gratification that the result of their inquiry
should thus have been to remove the possibility of any sus-
picion attaching to the character of so distinguished a mem-
ber of your lordships' house.

" And the committee have directed the minutes of evi-
dence taken before them, together with an appendix, to be
laid before your lordships."

THE DRAFT REPORTS.

It remains to be added that several divisions took
place in committee on passages in the draft report.
The following paragraph appeared in the draft
report:—
" The opinion which the Lord Chancellor appears to
have entertained of his duty upon this occasion is one in
which it is impossible for the committee to concur. In
forming a judgment upon it, it is necessary to bear in mind
the position in which Mr. Edmunds stood at the time his
petition was presented to the house. A report had been
made to the Lord Chancellor by persons whom he himself
had selected to inquire into alleged misconduct on the part
of Mr. Edmunds, charging him, in the strongest terms, with
havig misappropriated to his own use public moneys, with
having passed false accounts to the Treasury, and with
having.embezzled large sums,which, but for the accidental
discovery of his defalcations, would have been lost to the
public. Upon this report four grave charges had been
framed by the Attorney-General, and Mr. Edmunds had
been called upon to answer them in a judicial inquiry. In-
stead of meeting these charges, Mr. Edmunds preferred to
surrender his offices, and to undertake to pay all that was
due from him to the public; and he afterwards paid into the
Exchequer nearly three times as much as then discovered
deficiencies. A second report had been presented only a
fortnight before his resignation, which charged Mr.Edmunds
with still being a public defaulter to a very considerable
amount beyond the sum which he had so paid.
"These circumstances were fully known to the Lord
Chancellor, and were all essentially important to be known
by the house in order to enable it to determine whether
Mr. Edmunds was deserving of a pension or not. All that
was afterwards done in the house was founded upon the
petition presented to the house by the Lord Chancellor
without observation. Upon its presentation the acceptance
of Mr. Edmunds' resignation was moved and agreed to,
and the petition was afterwards referred by the house to
the Select Committee on the office of the Clerk of the
Parliaments."

For this Lord Taunton proposed to substitute
the following :

" The committee cannot coincide with the Lord Chan-
cellor in the view thus taken by him of his public duty.
In their opinion it was incumbent on him, who presented
the petition of Mr. Edmunds to the House of Lords, in
some manner to have apprised the Parliament-office Com-
mittee of the circumstances under which the resignation
of Mr. Edmunds of the clerkship had taken place, and
with which the Lord Chancellor was officially acquainted,
and not to hays left them to decide the question of a pen-
sion with no clearer light than that which could be derived
from vague and uncertain rumours. The committee have,
however, no reason to believe that the Lord Chancellor
was influenced by any unworthy or unbecoming motives
in thus abstaining from giving any information to the
committee."

On the question, that the paragraphs proposed to
be left out stand part of the report, there was the
following division : Contents : Earl of Derby,
Earl Graham, Earl of Malmesbury, Viscount Hut-
chinson, and Lord Chelmsford. Not-contents :
Lord President, Duke of Somerset, Earl of Claren-
don, Lord Panmure, Lord Stanley of Alderley, and
Lord Taunton.

The paragraph proposed to be inserted by Lord
Taunton was then agreed to.
The following paragraph also appeared in the
draft report :

" Although the committee see no ground for attributing
to the Lord Chancellor any motive except an unwillingness
to act harshly toward an officer of the House who had
faithfully performed his duties to it for many years, they
are compelled to come to the conclusion that in withhold-
ing from the knowledge of the House the serious matters
affecting the character of Mr. Edmunds, and presenting his
petition as if he approved of his application for a pension,
he acted under a mistaken sense of his duty, and has
thereby occasioned serious reflections to be cast upon the
conduct of the House, and has placed it in a situation of
I great embarrassment and difficulty."

On the question that the paragraph proposed
stand part of the report, there was the following
division :—Contents : Earl of Derby, Earl Graham,
Earl of Malmesbury, Viscount Hutchinson, and
Lord Chelmsford. Non-contents : Lord President,
Duke of Somerset, Earl of Clarendon, Lord Pan-
mure, Lord Stanley of Alderley, and Lord Taunton.
The following paragraph was proposed by the
Duke of Somerset, viz :
" The committee are of opinion that the pension having
been granted by the House in ignorance of the facts which
are now brought to light, the proper course will be for the
House to reconsider its former resolution."

On the question that thb paragraph stand part of
the report, the committee divided :—Contents :
Lord President, Duke of Somerset, and Earl of
Clarendon. Non-contents : Earl of Derby, Earl
Graham, Earl of Malmesbury, Viscount Hutchin-
son, Lord Panmure, Lord Stanley of Alderley, Lord
Cbelmsford, and Lord Taunton.

The report, minutes of committee, and evidence
will be printed on Tuesday.

THE ROAD MURDER,

EXAMINATION OF CONSTANCE KENT.
TROWBRIDGE, Thursday.
This morning Constance Emile Kent, who stands
charged upon her own confe6sion with having murdered
Francis Saville Kent, a child four years old, on the night
of the 29th of June, 1860, was brought up on remand at the
Sessions Court of this town, for further examination.
H. G. G. Ludlow, Esq., Heywood House, Westbury,
chairman; J. P. Stancomb, Esq., Thomas Clark, Esq., J.
H. Webb, Esq., John Sinkins, Esq., and C. F. C. Caillard,
Esq., were the magistrates who presided.
It was close upon 11 o'clock before the carriage convey-
ing Miss Kent, her father, and Mr. Alexander, the Gover-
nor of Devizes Gaol, drove up to the court. By this time
some 200 persons had assembled in the approaches, and of
course manifested the deepest curiosity to see the unfortu-
nate prisoner as she stepped from the carriage.

The magistrates took their seats on the bench at 11
o'clock precisely, and a few minutes afterwards Constance
Kent entered the dock, accompanied by Mrs. Alexander,
the wife of the governor of the gaol. Constance walked
in with her eyes cast down, and did not once raise her
head. She wore a thick black veil, and, as far as could be
perceived through it, she appeared much flushed. She was
very sad, but extremely quiet and self-possessed. Her
father was not in the court.

Mr. Rodway rose and said he was present to watch the
case on behalf of the prisoner, but that it was not his in-
tention to cross-examine the witnesses.

Elizabeth Gough was then called, and having been
sworn, said—ln 1860 I was nurse in Mr. Kent's family at
Road-hill House. I remember Friday evening, the 29th of
June. On that day I had been cleaning the nursery. I
was more busy than usual. I did not wake once during
the night, but slept very soundly. I then had charge of
the deceased, Francis Saville Kent. He slept in the
same room with me, in a cot on the opposite side.
There was another child, a little girl, in the same
room by the side of my bed. Her name was Eveline.
The cot in which the deceased slept was not
very near to the door, but on the same side of the room as
the door. My bed was opposite the door. I last saw the
deceased on the Friday evening, a little before 11 o'clock.
,I then went to bed, leaving him asleep in his cot. I awoke
the next morning first at 5 o'clock. The child was not
there then. I did not wake Mrs. Kent at that time.
I did not wake her because I thought she had taken
the child after I went to bed. I think the door of the
nursery was slightly on the jar. I can't remember distinctly
how it was. After I had seen Mrs. Kent I went to the
room of the Misses Kent- I saw the Misses Kent. I went
to inquire if they had seen the little boy. I saw the pri-
soner. She was standing by the door of her own room.
The Misses Kent were in their room. The prisoner was near
enough to hear the conversation that passed between me
and the Misses Kent. Tho prisoner made no remark what-
ever. I afterwards went down to Mrs. Kent, and I after-
wards examined the cot where the child had been lying.
The clothes were folded down at the foot of the bed. They
were put back. They were not disarranged. When the
deceased child was brought into the house I discovered
that a blanket was missing. It was the blanket between
the counterpane and the sheet that was missing. The
window and shutters of the dressing-room next to the
nursery were fastened as usual on the Friday night when I
went to bed, and I found them in the same state the next
morning. The window of the nursery was also in the same
state. It was the custom of the deceased to sleep in the
middle of the day. He did not do so on the Friday in ques-
tion, because the rooms were all in confusion. Mr. Kent's
family consisted of Mr. and Mrs. Kent, Miss Mary Ann
Kent, Miss Elizabeth Kent, Miss Constance Emile Kent,
and William Saville Kent. These four children were by
,the first wife of Mr. Sent. The names of the children by