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

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 made to 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 gentleman
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 amiable and 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 understood) 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 evidencee 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 says in defence of the indivi-
dual accused, that 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 motion 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 character of the House in the eyes
of the public by summarily disposing of the case. He thought it
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 they thought 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, that 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 the 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 their 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-himeelf2-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 proceed an further.
Mr. BARING thought that, in the present state of the opi-
nion of the Committee, it was not. necessary
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 substantiate the charge he was brought to make out. There
could be no doubt that Mr. Kenrick's conduct had' been indis-
creet and reprehensible ; but the question now was, whether it
had been so much so as to justify the House in addressing the
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 accused ; and 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. respectie i t
could
al-
though, if that should he his determination, he confessed that
his opinion must undergo such a revolution as he Could not at
preeent contemplate. The case, as it stood before the Com-
mittee, was one which concerned the fair administration of jus-
ee c
s s esl a
imof
a o the oo
t Itte comml us
t e
n istyro,i
oan
a te
d h
ti tho n
had
otioceantsowaelrl cll 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
nole
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
drein
his opinion substantiated all the allegations ' •
of that petition.—
By Monday he would be prepared to state the to H nse what
course he proposed to take, and he thought he should o certainly
make some motion. He, however, took leave tosay, thatn ify
the course first proposed had been adopted, he should
walked out of the House and have taken his leave of the Com.:
mittee.

Mr. CANNING did not hesitate to say, that when the sub-
ject came before the house, he 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