The Sun.
London, England, 1825-06-28 00:00:00

"mode of proceeding; that might seem toocar nnecessarily hard
upon Mr,Kenriek.

Mr. PEEL did 'not mean to impute the slightest inwro-
priety of feeling to The motives which bad attuated the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman. If, however, it should appear that
Mr. Kenrick could not enter upon his defence without calling
certain witnesses whose evidence seemed to be-considered ma-
terial, other Matters must necessarily stalcl over till next
session.

The SPEAltEA'anderstood the motion for postponing the
further consideration. of the charge against Mr. Kenrick to- be
postponed till to-morrow. The only question was, whether it
was lawful or notia the Chair to communicate t® the individual
accused, the substance of the charge against him? In charges
like this, where the charge against the party had been insisted
on as matter• of right, it had been usual to grant a.copy of such
a charge to the party accused. The usual course had certainly
been to communicate to him a copy of the charge against him.
Upon the.question being put from the Omit., it was agreed
that such copy should he communicated to Mr. Kenrick.
The oilier Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the
/louse Adjourned at HALF-YAST Two O'CLOCK.

PEERAGE.

HOUSE-OF LORDS, DIV:THAT, JUNI 27.
TIE GAR])NER PEZRAGE.

Mr. TINDAL, on behalf of the opporient in this
'-ease, said, that the only question far their Lordships'
.decision
was, whether his client, Henry Fenton Gardner, was heir. to
*the late Lord Viscount Gardner; and that depended on
'whether he was born within That period,- whereby, by. the
'laws of nature, he 'could be his legitimate son. He was born
in wedlock; and it was agreed that both the parents were capa-
ble of procreating and begetting children, or, in the language of
the Civilians, Wiles in niatrsinoninm. They_ lived together
previous, subsequent, and at the time of his birth. .This,
formed a prima Attie Case of legitimacy, and he con-
-tended that it remained -with the other side to prove him
illegitimate. 'Phis 'was not a lee:Alen of probability
or 'improbability, but of ,postiibility or impossibilityr.-
,According 'to the law n such Cases, the ground on which.
their Lordships ought to decide were, whether or. riot,
'there-was a possibility of access during wedlock. In a case of,
legitimacy,"tried in the King's Bench in the reign of Heniy
Th© plea pat in against the Claimant was, that his mother.
was with child before the marriage, and went to live with an. I
other man subsequently, and that While 'living with that man
the child was born. The judA,e- s on that occasion - said
that the child was legitimate, unless the other party could prove
the impossibility of the matter. The Learned Counsel here
quoted many instances of legitimacy having been established
on the grounds of possibility, where the probabilities of the
contrary were very- strong; and observed that the physicians
examined agreed, that as far- as. their own experience went
there was no instance of the period of gestation being 311 days ;
and because it did not come within theirexpe.rience, thereon-
eluded it was impossible, 'without being able to assign any_ rea-
son for it; butif he could he able to 'Show-their Lordships that
there' had been many instances of gestation having been pro-
tracted even beyond that period, he trusted it would outweigh
the other evidence, particularly as no reason had been'assigned
of its irnpossibilty.
Dr. Granville, Dr. Conquest, and Dr. Merryman, were via-
,mined. Their evidence went principally to show, that a gesta-
tion of 311 days was not impossible, from many instances of
gestation. of even a longer period that came within their own
-experience.—Further consideration Was adjourned.