The Sun.
London, England, 1826-02-22 00:00:00

VERY FAST TRAVELLING,

To BIRMINGHAM anti LIVERPOOL, by DAY and NIGHT
FOUR INSIDE COACHES, which KEEP GOOD TIME,
from the SARACEN'S HEAD INN, SKINNER-STREET,
SNOW-HILL, LONDON.
THE following LIGHT POST-COACHES,
and MAILS, &c. set out from the above Inn:—
BIRMINGHAM "Tally HO!" fast Day Coach,, in thir-
teen hours, Morning at a quarter before Seven, through Red-
burn, M7.rket Street, Dunstable, Brickbat, Fenny Stratford,
Stoney Srrat ford , Towcester, ‘ireedon, Davcntry, Dmichurch,
Coventry, and Stone Bridge, to the Castle Hotel and St.
George's Tavern, High-street, Birmitsgham, to ShilTnall,.
Wellington, Bridgenorth, Shelton, Shrewsbury, Qswestry,
Nantwich, Tarporley, Bangor, Chester, and Holyhead.—
Driven through with two Coachmen only. In consequence
of the decided preference given to the Tally Ho Coach, the
Proprietors are determined no expencc shall be spared to
render it the first conveyance on the Birmingham Road.
,BIRMINGHAM- " Royal Express," New light fast Night
Coach, in 15 hours only, and driven through with Two
Coachmen, sets out every afternoon, carrying Four
only 1. passes through Warwick, Leamington, Sontham,
Weedon, Daventry, Stoney-Stratford, and Towccster, to the
Saracen's Head, Bull-street, Birmingham, early the next
Morning.

BROMPTON, Chatham, Rochester, Gravesend, Stroud,
Sittinghourne,.ltainham, and Ospringe, every Morning.
BARNSTAPLE, Southmolton, Crediton, Tiverton North-
lawtou, Oakhampton, Torrington, Churulcigh, Ilfracomb,
and Biddeford. New light fast Coach, every Morning, at 7.
BATH and BAISTOL Cheap Post-Coaches, through Chip-
pen hams), Caine, Marlborough, Hungerford, Newbury, and
Reading, eve' y Afternoon at one; arrive at the Greyhound
Inn, Bath, the London Tavern, Miims-street, and Swats,
Bristol, early the next Morning. At reduced Fares.
BOSTON New Royal Patent Mail to Lomb, through
Royston, Cambridge, Huntingdon, Stilton, Peterborough,
Deeping, Spitlding,Spi'shy, Alford, and GI qtsby, Evening,
at Half past 7, Sunday, at a (limner before 7.
CAMBRIDGE New Royal Patent Mail, through Ware,
Buntingford, BuAland, and Royston, Evening, at Half past
7, Sunday, at a Quarter before 7.
CARLISLE " Express," only One Night on the• Road, to
Penrith, and Whitehaven, a New Light Four-inside Post
Coach, with a Gum el all the way; passes through Appleby,
Brought, Bowes, Greta7bridge,Richmond, Catterick, 130.
roughbrnlge, Ferrybridge, Doncaster, Newark, Bawtry,
Grantham, Stamford, Greethant, Stilton, Lliggleswade, and
Baldock. Sets out in the Morning, and performs the Jour•
ney with the greatest facility. Passengers detained on the
Road by business or pleasure, have the peculiar advantage
of their Seats being secured in the next Coach.--The only
direct Coach to Carlisle. -

CHESTER Light Coaches to Newport, Whitechurch, Tar-
porley, Nanytwich, Northwich, and Al iddlewich, every worn.
Ing and afternoon •
COVENTRY " Tally Ho," light fast Day Coach, every
mornipg at a quarter before 7, throng!. Red burn, Dunstable,
Stoney Stratford, Towcester, ‘Vecdon, Daventry, and Don-
church.

DOVER and Paris Patent Safe Coach, every morning,
through Canterbury and Chatham.
DORCHESTER New light Day Coaches, in fourteen hours
only, through Bagshut, Blackwatcr, Basingsokc, Overton,
Whitchurch, Andover, Salisbury, Wood)eats, Cashmore, and
Blandford, at a quarter past 5 and 7 in the morning.
EXE'T'ER "Sovereign," New light fast Coach every morn.
ing at 7 o'Clock, through Honiton, Axminster, Charmoittli,
Bridport, Dorchester, Blandford, Woodyatcs Inn, Salisbury,
Stockbridge, Sutton, Basingstoke, Blackwater, and Bagehot,
GLASGOW, Longtown, Gretna-green, Annan, Dumfries,.
Brownlllll, Thornhill, Sanqultar-Kiln, Caninock, Kingswell,
and all Parts of Scotland, a light Four inside Post Coach daily,
HARROWGATE and Ripon new Light Post Coaches, every
Afternoon at Two, arid Seven in the Morning.
HERTFORD Coach, through Waltham Cross, Cheshunt,
Hoddesdon, and *are.

HOLYHEAD NeW. light fast Day and Night Coaches,
through Br idgenort h, Walsal, Shrewsbury, and Salop, every
morning and afternoon.
HULL "Exprese," a New Light Post Coach, to Lincoln-
Northcavc, Bowden, and Doncaster, every Morningg, to the
Cross Keys, Market-place, Httll and also the "
Rocking-
ham" in the Afternoon at Two.
KENDAL Light fast. Post Coaches to Lancaster, Preston,
Kirby-Lonsdale, Bolton, Chorlcy, Ormskirk, and Garstang,
• every morning and afternoon.
KIDDERMINSTER; Stourbridge, and Dudley, through
Birmingham, and West Bromwich, light .Coaches every moth-.
ins and afternoon.
LEEDS " Rockingham," light Post Coach, sets out
every Afternoon at Two; and passes through Baldock, Big-
gleswaile, Eaton, Buckden, Stilton, ‘Vansford, Stamford,
Greetham, Grantham, Newark, Toxford, Markham Moor,
Retford, Ilawtry, Deneaster, and Ferrybridge, arrives at the
.Golden Lion Inn, Leeds, next, Afternoon at Three, in time
or the Bradford, Halifax, Skipton, and Huddersfield Coaches.
Driven through with Four Coachmen only.—Luggage avid
Packages only id per lb.—Notwithstanding the uncommon
Expedition of this Coach, it is allowed to Ins the most agree..
able and complete Public Conveyance on the North Road,
being unequalled by any other.
LIVERPOOL and Staffordshire Potteries New light fast
Day Coach, every morning at half-past Six, driven through
with Four Coachmen only.
LIVERPOOL " Umpire," New light fast Four Inside
Coach, in 17 hours only, (but one Night on the Road), sets
out Daily at. One ; and arrives at Liverpool next afternoon,
Lathbury, Northampton, Welford,
ttell;sTolgrth Woburn,h,Hiil
ekley,Atherstone,Tam worth, Litehfield,Stone,
Newcastle, Knutstord, Warrington, and Present.
LIVERPOOL " Royal Exprehti," Now light Four Inside
Post Coach, in Twenty-severs hours, and driven through
by Four Coachmen only, through ‘Yarrington,l Pres-
ton, Congleton, Lawton, Newcastle, Rugely, Knutsford,
Stone, Stafford, and Litchfield, (only One Night on the
road), every. Afternoon ; arrives at the Saracen's litEd
Inn, Dale-street, Liverpool, next Afternoon. The advan.,
Cages to Travellers wino honour this Coach with their pre-
ference are far superior to any other on this Road, especially
to Commercial Interests, as it performs the journey less
time than any other Coacb, and is driven through with Four
Coachmen; and, notwithstanding its cheapness arid expetli.
lien, the Proprietors pledge themselves that for safety and
accommodation it is equalled by few, and shall be surpassed
by none.
MANCHESTER and Altringliant New light very fast Day
Coach, every morning to the Mostly Arms and Swan Inn.
MANCHESTER to Winslow, COngleton,.Newcastle, Ntral.
sail, Wolverhampton, and Knutsford, light Four !nude
Coaches. . .

- MARLBOROUGH and Swindon, four inside Day COach,
through Maidenhead,Reftding, Ntiwbury,Hungerford,Rams-
bury, and Aldhourn. Driven through with One Coachman
only, The nearest conveyance to Lambourn, Purton, Woot-
ton Basset, and Pewsey.
NEWCASTLE UPtiN TYNE and UNDER LINE Coaches
every morning and afternoon. Only One Night on the road.
PLYMOUTH '6 Sovereign," New light fast Coach, to Pal.
mouth, Truro, Bodmin, Penryn, Ashburton, Tutneas, and
Newton Abbott, every morning at 7.
RAMSGATE " Royal Telegraph," New superior fast safe
Coach, to Margate, Dover, Deal, Broadstairs, Canterbury,
Faversham, and Sandwich—every Morning at half-past 7.
In consequence of the decided preference given to the Te.
legraph safe Coach, the Proprietors are determined no
eypenee shall be spared to render it the first conveyance on
the Kent Road.

SHEFFIELD 44 Express," and also " The Rockingham,"
through Rotherham, New Four inside Post Coaches, every
morning and afternoon.
SHREWSBURY, Wellington, and Shiffnal, Light Post.
Coaches, every morning and afternoon.—Guarded.
SOLIT,HAhIPTON " Union," to .Lymington, Lyndhurst,
Winchester, Basingstoke, Hartford Bridge, Black water, and
13agshot, New Fonr Inside Coach, every morning, and ar'
drys at the Coaeh and Horses and Vine Inn, Southamp-
ton, by Fire. This is a most delightful Conveyance to
the Isle of Wight, Jersey, Guernsey, St. Maloes, Havre de
Grace,Clierbourgh, &c.—The Proprietors of the above
Coack hope to receive a continuance of that support which
has hitherto been
_experienced since the commencement of
the Union," _ _

STAFFORDSHIRE POTTERIES, a new light very fast
Coach, every afternoon, to Lanend, Stoke, Shelton, Burden),
Tunstall, Lawton, Hanly and Holmes Chapel. This is tha
only Coach direct to the Potteries.

STAMFORD light Post Coaches every morning and after.

PARLIAAIENT,

HOUSE OF LORDS, FEB. 21.

Lord. KING presented a petition from Ilgrnard Ross, a share
holder in theillexican Compapy,liraying that a Com-
mittee might be appointed to inquire into the conduct of the
Projectors and Directors of the said Company, and into Joint
Stock Companies in general.
Petitions, praying for the Abolition of Slavery, were present-
ed by Lord C.tititiNciTtiti from Gainsborough ; and by the
Bishop of BATii and WE r:Ls, from Bath.
Officers from the Treasury and the Bank presented an ac-
count of the number of Country Bank-notes circulating in Ire-
land, front the year 1819 to the year 1821, distinguishing those
OM and upwards; and an account of the Notes of the Bank
of Ireland in circulation on the 15th of February, lath of May,
15th of August, and the 15th of November of each ache above
years.—Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Mr. BANKES took the oatto and his scat for the County of
Dorset.

Accounts were presented from the Treasury respecting the
Customs and Bank notes, also the :annual: certificate from the
Commissioners for regulating the offices of the House of
Commons.

NEW, CORN-MARKET.
Mr. S. WHITBREAD presented a petition from certain
growers of corn in the County of Middlesex, in favour of the
new corn,tuarket.

Similar petitions were presented from merchants and
grower of corn in Southwark and Kent, and certain dealers in
London.

On the motion, of Sir E. KNATcnnur.t., the new Cern.
Market Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be
committed.

Mr. MING presented a petition from those engaged in the
silk trade in Mile-end New-town, against the importation of
foreign silk.
111r.EUTCH/NSONprosented the report of the Committee
on the Hibernian Joint stock Company Bill, and obtained leave
to bring in a Bill to amend and enlarge the same.
The Hon. Member also presented a petition from the mer.
chants and traders of Bandon, in favour of the Basingstoke
Canal Bill.

31r. CALVERT obtained leave to bring in a Bill for the
better paving, lighting, and eleanaing the Borough of South.
wark.

Mr. T. WILSON obtained leare to bring hi a Bill for the
formation of an► Arcade between Holborn and Lincoln'r.inn•
fields.

Petitions for the Abolition of Slavery were presented from
Poole, Leicester, Kidderminster, Leeds, and Cardiff:
Mr.LYGONpresented a petition from Kidderminster, for
a repeal of the Corn Laws.
Mr. 11.1ANSFULD presented a simiLtr petition from Lei.
colter.

Sir J. SEBRIGHT presented a petition from St. Alban's,
against the Importation of Foreign Silks.
Sir E. HYDE EAST presented a similar petition from the
Silk.throwsters of Winchester.
LIABILITY OF MEMBERS TO SEILVE ON JURIES.
Mr. BENETT wished to obtain information from the
Speaker to guide him in the situation in which he stood. He
was directed, in pursuance of the orders of the House, to attend
a Committee to-morrow morning, and lie was also summoned
as a juror in Westminster. hail. How was it possible for hint
to obey their orders, and at the sante time discharge his duty to
his country in the situation of juror, at one and the same time ?
—(Hear, hear I)—He was really at a loss how to proceed under
these circumstances, and lie threw himself on the Speaker for
the benefit of his experience, and to know how he should act.--
(Hear, hear !)
The SPEAKER said that the House was aware this very
question had been referral to the consideration of a Committee
of Privileges, which had not yet made their report. The only
answer lie could give at present to the question which the
Honourable 31em-ber had put to him, was, that he (the
Speaker) had himself no doubt of the couse which lie should
individually pursue, where he placed under the dreams
stances alluded to,. (and he had no other protection than that
which mu enjoyed by every other Member of Parliament);
his answer would, be, that conceiving hie duty in that House
was his first obligation, he should perform it—he would not
say, neglecting every other duty, for that would imply a
fault, but—omitting all others which could clash therewith.
lie understood that the Report of the Committee of Privilege
was ready for presentation, and would be presented in the
course of the evening,
SCOTCH BANKS.
Mr. W. DUNDAS, in presenting a Petition from the Lord
Provost and Corporation of-Edinburgh, against any alteration
in the banking system of Scotland, hoped that the Government
and the House would pause before they touched an established
planwith oinfilitltttistientatissv to
, had existed for more than a century,
the country in all its important in.
terests.—(Hear, hear )
After a few words from Mr. ROBERTSON the petition was
then laid on the table.
TOLLS AND CUSTOMS IN IRELAND.
. On the motion of Mr. S. RICE, a' select Committee was ap.
fointed to consider the returns of the tolls and customs taken at
airs and markets in Ireland, and how far the existing laws on
the subject might be altered, so as to guard against any undue
charges by any of the local authorities.
MONUK presented a petition from the silk-weavers in
the town arid neihbourhood of Rending, complaining or the
distressed state of their trade, and praying (as we understood)
against the importation of foreign bilks.
Mr. P. PALMER bore testimony to the distresed state of
the petitioners, whom he had once seen in prosperous eiremn.
*Lances. The change he attributed to the measures proposed
by Ministers without respect to foreign silks.
JOINT STOCK COMPANIES—MEXICAN MINING,
COMPA Nl'.
Mr. 11013110 USE rose to present a petition, to which he
requested the attention of the 'louse. It related to a subject
to which he .had-frequently before adverted, and to which,
notwithstanding all that had been said, he could not help at-
tributing a great portion of the present distress—be meant
joint stock companies. When Hon. Members considered that
every one of the shares in those bubbles which was thrown

on the market was at bad piece of bank currency, they would
not be surprised at the extent of the evil which now prevailed.
The loss occasioned by the great extent to which those ruinous
speculations were carried, it the highest rate of premium and
the lowest rate of discount were considered. would, he had no
doubt, by found to fall little short of 14 millions. Some, he he.
tiered by far the greater part of. theee speculations, were a
total loss to the subscribers; and of those few which were car-
ried into operation, he believed it would be found that very
little profits had been _shared. ! One great evil of those specula-
tions was the injury they had done to the. hitherto netarnished
character of the English merchant. Some of the wildcat of
the schemes were ushered into, the world with the names of
some of the most respectable merchants and traders of Lon.
don at their head ; and . he was assured by a gentleman well
acqeainted with these matters, that one cause of the.'pre.
sent difficulty of obtaining credit in the city, was, that so
many were engaged in these schemes that. , persons kneW
not whom to trust. As this subject was likely to come before
the House in a short time, the matter having now been taken
up by the corporation of the city of London, from which he.
understood a petition would in a few days be presented, praying
for inquiry into the late epetseletione, be would not thee tree-
pass longer chats while he briefly stated the. object • of the netie
tion before them. It was front a person named 'Bernard Ross
(as we understand), and it complained of the conduct of the
Directors of the Mexican Mining Company. Petitioner had
_purchased shares in that company, but on coming to sign die
deed of settlement, he found that it contained clauses which
were extremely objectionable, and which he therefore refused to
adopt by signing the deed. In consequence of this, the directors
declared that he was no longer a shareholder. The clause to
which the petitioner objected was (as we understand it) one by
Which time directors were to. be indemnified against any legal
proceedings. This he (Mr. Hobhouse) thought was a course not
warranted by law, for the directors had certainly acted illegally
in the sale of shares; for it was well known that persons who
were not originally shareholders, but had become purchasers,
had no remedy for a recovery of their money in a court of law.
The petitioner stated, that each of the directors had appropriated
to himself 200 shares, and that the whole number divided be-
tween directors, solicitors, and others connected with the com-
pany, was 3,800. So that the purchasers to that number (and it
was said the most of these were sold) would be deprived of a re-
medy in a court of law, not being original shareholders. The
premium at which the shares were sold was said to be 151.
per share, so that the whole sum realized by those shares
would amount to .4,0001. This statement, it was but fair to
'say, was denied by the gentleman against whom the petitioner
complained,' and who stated, that the whole of the allegations
against them were greatly exaggerated. He (Mr. Hobhouse)
,had seen sonic of the parties co npleined against on this stip-
‘jeet, and they denied that they were• culpable in the course
they took. The whole amount of money received for shares
by each director dill not exceed from 1,5001. to 1,7001. ; but
even admitting this to be correct, he would contend that
the sale of these shares was not a bone fide transactions and
it was to be greatly regretted that highly respectable indie
viduals would have lent themselves to such transactions.—
. The prayer of the petition was, that a Committee might
be appointed to inquire into the formation of joint stock!
companies generally, and into that of the Mexican Cons-'
piny in particular. When he (Mr. Hobhouse) had, on a
former evening, asked the Attorney-General whether he in-
tended to introduce any legal measures for the better protec.
tion of the public against the formation of such joint stock
companies in future, .he was sorry to -learn that he had no
such intention. The Learned Gentleman had saide- that as
the law Ow stood, no additional measure was necessary ;
14n, that directors as well as others could be punished for
fraudulent transactions, if there was sufficient evidence to
prove the fact. Notwitstanding this declaration of the
hLearned Gentleman, he could not help thinking' that some
measure was necessary.forehe more eflimctual protection of the
public, particularly as the -Bubble Act, which •made the foun-
dation of all such companies illegal, and subject to very heavy
penalties, had been repealed. Much mischief was likely to
occur from the repeal of. that Act, unless some more effectuel -
measures were introduced. He did hope that the House would
feel it to be its duty to institute some inquiry as to who were
the authors of many of those ruinous schemes. He begged to
call the attention of the house to the course which had been
adopted in Parliament af.er the blowing up of the South I,iimet
bubble. A Noble Lord, then on the Oppoeition•side 'of the
.House, objected to any address in answer to the speech from
the Throne going up, unless it contained some pledge on the
part of the House that they would inquire and punish those
who were concerned in the scheme; and an amendment to that
erect was moved and carried. Certainly there was this dile
ference between the case of the South Sea Bubble anti the late
speculations—that the former was directly encouraged by the
Ministers of that day. But though that was not tile case with
respect to the late joint stack companies, still it was, he thought,
not less the duty of that House to inquire as to who were their
authors. The petitioner in this case had mentioned the names
of all the parties concerned in this company i but as it would
be invidious at present to mention those names, ho would not
repeat timene
The petition was then read, and ordered to lie on die table.

NEW WJUT.
On the motion of Mr. 14:mum, a new, writ was orderpd to
be issued for the election of a burgess to serve for the borough
of Devizes, in the room of Thomas &swoon, Esq., who had
accepted the Chiltern Hundreds.'
Petitions against negro slavery were presented by Sir J.
Wrottesley, from Wolverhampton; by Mr. Dennison from
Kingston ; by Mr. Alderman Heygate from Sudbury; by
Lord J. Russell from St. Ives, and another place:in the county
of Huntingdon.—They were ordered to be printed.
Mr. Alderman HEYGATE presented a petition from Wool.
wich, praying for the prevention of cruelty to animals.
On the motion of Mr. J. G. HEATficoTE, it was ordered
that there be laid before the House, a return of the number of
ships, with the tonnage and men in each, entered in the ports
of the United Kingdom within the last year, distinguishing
foreign from British ships, and stating the particular countries
to which the foreign ships belonged.

REPORT OP THE COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEC4E.
Mr. WYNN appeared at the bar with a report of the Com.
mittee of Privilege, to which had been referred the complaint
of an Hon. Member, that certain Members of that House had
been fined in the . Common Law Courts for not attending as
jurors during the sitting of the house. The report was read,
and was to this effect :—That it appeared to the Committee to
he the ancient and acknowledged usage of that House that
Member+ attending the high Court of Parliament were ex.
exempted from attendance as jurors in, any of the courts of law.
The report then cited the fol owing cases :---On the 22d Nov.,
1607, a Member complained to the House that Sir John Tracy,
also a Member of the House, had been compelled by a sum.
mons to attend as a juror in the Court of Common Pleas, on
which the Sergeant was directed to proceed to the Court with
the mace, and require the Hon. Member's attendance in his
place in ihe House ; which wriaaccordingly done. On the 6th
of May, 1607, it was stated to the House that Sir Thomas
Iligges and Sir Thomas Lowe, both Members, had been sum-
moned to attend as jurors, upon an issue in the Court of
King's Bench. The Sergeant was directed to proceed with his
mace, and require their attendance in the }louse. On the 16th
May, 1628, it was reported to the House that Sir J. holford
(we think), a Member, had been summoned to attend a jury in
she Court of King's Bench, and it was ordered that the
Speaker should write to the Judge of that Court, requiring
that the hon. Member should not be amerced for non-appear.
twee, he having to attend his ditties in ParliaMent. The report
further added, that the privilege of Members in this respect was
Mr. NV YNN now moved that this report be agreed to. He
fully recognised by the fith Geo. IV., cap. 69.
observed, that as no doubt the tines had been imposed in mute.
quence of a misconstruction of the act, he thought the House
would sufficiently assert its Privacifes by, agreeing to this re.
port, and proceeding no further in the titian.
ItIL CHOKER observed, that the report contained the words,
" members attending the High Court of Parliament;" it might
be a question how far that particular House constituted the
Higgh Conn of Parliament.
11.1 r. WYNN said there was no doubt that that House was
the High Coe: of Parliament sufficiently for the assertion of
its privileges.
Mr. HUME. wished to know in what manner the decision of
the House on this subject was to be communicated to the
Learned Panto of the Exchequer ; for, however ridiculous it
might be, it was well known that printing the proceedings of
that House was held to be illegal.

The SPEAKER said that the Hon. Member ought to know
that one of the first orders of the Session was for printing the
votes of the House, by which its proceedings could be known.
There were besides the Journals of the House in which the
proceedings were recorded, and which were aoceaelble by the

public in consequence of the permission given ti parties to sell
them.lt '
ir.IIUME repeated this question. Ire wanted to know in
what way the publia were to become acquainted with the pro-
ceedings?
The SPEAKER—In the same manner that the public be
comes acquainted with public acts of Parliament—by their au,
thorized publication.
Mr. HOLFORD observed, that he thought the privileges:
of Membeni were sufficiently asserted in the report bet Ore the
I louse s he would not therefore take any further proceeding.—.
The report was then ordered to be printed.
BEAR BAITING, &c.
Mr. AIARTIN moved for leave to bring in a Bill for pre-
hibiting Bear-baiting, Badger-beating, Dog-fighting, and other
simile', sports. He trusted it would he unnecesary for him to
enter largely into the subject at this early Maga, as it was an.
usual to oppose an application for leave to bring in a BM, No
doubt it was competent for any Hon. Gentleman to oppose it,
it'hetleatiett ; but Ile trusted that so unusual a practice would
hot be,rerorted to, when the object of the 'application was se
perfeeitOrteunison kith the dictates of humanity. It was de-
eittedly the unanimous wish of their constituent:, that legisla-
tit'e measures should be employed for the removal of a system.
so demoralizing in its efft•cts to the juvenile classes of society:
He held in his hand a list of 42 petitione—one for every week
in the year—on the subject—trom Liverpool, Manchester, Bie.
minghtun, Bristol, Hull, anti several other places. He in-
sufficed the atrocities committed et a place with the classic
name of the Patrician \Westminster Pit.
The ATTORNEW.OENERAL would not oppose the ap.
plication, though the Bill had been frequently .before the
House, and its provisions repeatedly discussed.
Mr. MARTIN hoped the Attorney-General would have no
objection that his opposition should he reported at the Univere
shy of Cambridge, which he was so anxious to represent. He
might perhaps find it somewhat to Ida cost to sneer at the in.
troduction of so humane a measure, when he went to seek the
suffrages of Christian Clergymen.
The Avrontere-GeNERM. denied that he sneered et all.
Mr. MARTIN thought he saw him rieeer, when he named
Cambridge. The Clergy, tea man, were with him. Petition*
were now getting up on the subject. He could answer for it
that the Clergymen of Westminster College (except Doctor
Goodenough whom he did not see) were on his side; as Was
the Very Rev. Dean. He had seen an affidavit, wherein it wrs
atated,that at a bull-bait in Oxfordshire, the ljarbarous owner cut
out the unfortunate animal's tongue, after ft had been lacerated
by a dog. The tonge was then sent round on a plate for the
collection of money. One instance wee worth a hundred ar.
dog, coin pfterhlet:eistilmdtaohlgel
.ad
eleleteogeneadsgxectru,iiin:i
it was
tifightt,vimi tilierti‘elaleatteirgdt
oe,
aotitc:d!
guments. On a late occasion, a wretch, who owned x little
t
caorlicimwteirlean
the brutal master, irritated at the failure, actually, chopped cii'
the poor dog's legs with a bill-hook, and then hurried airs crea-
iglntilwatllai est osB
NIT alive. The Magistrates of Queen-square regretted that the
law did not allow them to put down these cruel sports, Hoek.
fled any man to say that the universal feeling of the kingdom
was not in favour of a legislative enactment tor the reetreint Of
cruelty. The subject was now started ut a moment peen lierlvtsio •
pitious to the interests of humanity, when they would shortly`have
to appear 'before their constituents. The A unlit: y-Getteral
might be assured that the part he acted in the ireitee. would.
reach Cambridge one way or another. The transtietieten of the
House were sure to be reported in the most distant quarters
Perhaps pigeons fled with the news.
Mr. W. SMITH would not be debarred by an appre'eenaion
of ridicule, from giving his opinion on a subject, which con-
cerned the morals of the community. He appleuded•t he fine-
ness and humanity of the Hon. Member for Galiveriti brae.
'ing ridicule on such a subject, and pressing his Bill upon the
House. Hon. Gentlemen who opposed the Bill atust eitln
not believe the facts stated, or they musLconceive the present
laws adequate to the suppnesion of the enormities complained
or—and if so, why were not those laws executed ? Or finally,
they must he of opinion that the alleged practices were for the,
advantage of the country. The truth of such an opinion he
defied them to demonstrate. He could, see, in the atteeted
losophy which claimed a license for the vulgar to indulge, in
their usual sports, real contempt for the poorer clessek which
denied them the benefit of instruction. It was treating them
in the same manner as the slaves in the colonies were teemed ;
"no matter how profligate they were 30 long as they worked.
How could those Gentlemen who ittleneated education in the
lower orders, suffer those who had been leaning morality der.
ing the day, to go from school to the disgraceful and bat buroue
exhibition of a bear baiting ? It would be consistent enough
In those who wished the vulgar to be no better than hewers of
wood and drawers of water.
Colonel WOOD would vote for the Bill ; to which he was
principally induced by an accountof a brutal scene which wok
place at a lion fight in Warwickshire. The Hon. :Mintier
went into a detail of the exhibition at the lion fight, at which
he must say, that the conduct of the monsters who promoted
the light was more horrid and ferocious than that of the savage
dogs who tore and worried the lion.
Sir R. WILSON was of opinion, as far as his information
was of any weight on a legal subject, that the master who had
chopped oil' his dog's legs, and buried him whilst breathing, ,
was liable to punishment, by the existing laws, at the Assize*,
Mr. RIDLEr COLBURN supported the objection made
r to the Bill, on the same grounds as had been taken to it by the
Hon. the Attorney-General. He admitted the Hoe. ;limber
for Galway had displayed great perseverance and firmness in
support of the Bill, which had already made him popular with
some, and unpopular with others. He was at all times indisposed
to interfere with the sports of the lower orders, and should
therefore oppose the motion of the Hon. Member.
Mr.' CARUS WILSON combatted the objection that they
were not on slight grounds to legislate for restraining the ems•
watery amusements of the poor, by reminding the Hauer that
these brutal gratifications formed a part of the fashiwable
sports of the more wealthy and better informed. It was the
more necessary to restrain them. He should support the motion,
Mr. MARTIN explained.
Mr. Secretary PEEL observed, this was not the first Session
in which this application had been made to the House for its
permission to bring in this Bill. It had been made now every
Session for the last three years. The House was aware, there.
fore, at the first blush whether this bill ought to be enteitaine&
It was an absurd idea that a lion was a nobler animal than
others, or that the domestic animal the dohought to be pro-
tected,' whilst the harmless pigeon became,. uteubject of cruel 10
sport to the higher classes, being daily and killed ar
maimed in those authorised and fltehionahle 'meetings denorni.
nated pigeon matches. There was no principle in dile 11111 ter
ground an interference on the part of the Legislature in favour
of the particular animals specified, to the exclusion of others
who appeared equally well entitled to legal protection. He
therefore felt it his duty to oppose the introduction of the Bill,
more particularly as he feared that any legislative enactment of
this kind might be made, perhaps, the means of persecuting of
oppressing human beings.
The House then divided, when there apppeared—
Ayes . • 35
Noes

-39 „:

Majority
CRUELTY TO CATTLE.
On our re-admission to the gallery we found Mr. MARTIN
addressing the Ilouse on the subjeat of his Motion, for leave to
bring in a Bill to amend the Act for preventing Cruelty to
Cattle. It was his intention to give by this Bin a power to the
Magistrate to apportion to the person proeecuting the offender,
so much of the fine to the Crown as should remunerate hint for
the loss of his time incurred in the prosecution of the offender,
and no more. There was also it provision to send cases of groat
atrocity, to the Sessions, in cases where the cattle hod been
maimed maliciously by the owner; and this he was desirous,. of
having sanctioned by the Learned Attorney-General, because it
now appeared to be the law, that if the animal so abused was
the party's own, Sir James Mackintosh's Act had not rendered
it a felony, and the parties were dispunishable. Would .fir.
A ttorney-Oeneral now assert the law to be what he ti t4teti Lst
Seasinn, that the owner maiming his own horse was liable to
transportation ? fie begged leave to say, that the 'A ttorney.
(letterer' was deceived as to his opinion, and that :Is thti letv
stands„ the man who maimed his own aide its not. Under sir
J. Mackintosh's Act, lisble to any punishment.. Kis Learoed
Friend's mistake arose from this--he fourta thelviaTd wilet4r
w
frorn malice at otherwise' but thesis words reArigl.ortly to au
the owner might
offence committed ageirott a third petoton, and nut to tlytt which
animal- ..e instituted
the case tried by Sir James Aferwifit:l4, with respect to hares
bo
poisoned by villains in order to,sect!te the winning (tithe race:-
ie then moved for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Bill
40 to his horse or other 14
for preventing cruelty to cattle.
111 r. istoTtatwOßTH seconded the motion, and regret.
ted it did not reach the case of pry-fighting, which he eonsi.

*Nit to be a practice more unchristianlike and brutal than even
the maiming or injuring of cattle.
Mr. ASHURST rose to answer the challenge which had
been given to him on his entrance into the House. He, in al-
lusion to the bull-baiting at Thane, admitted that the Hon.
information was in part correct, in part otherwise.
The witness examined before thelMagistrate, stated that a very
furious mischievous dog, who had been tied up from the sport,
had broken loose, and fastened on the bull's tongue, and tore
oilsa piece of the tongue. This witness denied having seen the
tongue cut out, or put on a plate as described. He had not
committed or convicted the party accused, because he did not
consider bull-baiting to be a crime, nor could he do so as long
AS he knew that grants of land were held, as in the case of the
Bachelors' Ace at Windsor.; also at Ntrokiugham and Stam-
ford, on condition of baiting a bull at certain seasons.
. Mr. MARTIN said if there were a doubt on the subject he
would set it to rest by printing the opinion of the Attorney-
general tomorrow, for the benefit of the Chairman and Bench
of Oxfordshire Magistrates.
The Arc olt N :Y-GENERA b said he should not op-
T,ose the Hon. Member's addressing the House to *thew how
.
•ar the Bill in existence required amendment. Such a course
was perfectly consistent, even supposing he did not intend to
support the 11111 when introduced. The Honourable Member
for Dovetseemed to labour under a mistake as to the subject
which he thought the Bill should embrace. There was no
doubt that prize fighting was illegal by the present laws of
the country, and punishable. lie should not oppose the
motion, nor was he at all disposed to countenance cruelty even
to the brute creation. He felt it, however, an unsafe mode of
legislation to rely on alleged cases of cruelty, and it would be
much snore unsafe in the present instance, where the facts, as
suited by the lion. Member, were controverted and disproved
by the statement of the Hon. Member, to whom a reference
had been made in the course of the debate.—Leave was given
to bring in the Bill. •
SMALL TITHES.
Mr. SYKES moved for leave to bring in a Bill to amend
the 7th and lith of King William, for the Collection of Small
Tithes.—Leave was given.
INSURRECTION OF SLAVES. .

Mr. DENMAN ihmitirmed his notice of motion, relative to
'slaves executed at Jamaica for revolt, frg,rn Wednesday the 3d
of March, to Thursday following.
MR. KEN RICK'S CASE.
Mr. DENMAN then moved the Order of the Day for the
-reconsideration of Mr. -Keurick's case. .

In reply 'to a question from Mr. BUTTEIIWORTII, relative
•-to Mr. Kenrick holding the alike of Recorder of Dover,
Mr. Secretary PEEL said he had not heard of his being dis.
- placed from that situation, if he held it. The duty might be
done by deputy ; but it was rather extraordinary the Hon.
Member, who sat for Dover, shotdd not know better than he
did whether M r. Kenrick did or did not hold such a situation.
_ _

Mr. DEN 31AN stated that Mr. limit: k held no such office.
There was in Dover the ollice u 1 High Steward which was
pedlar, that which he held.
' The SPEAKER. inquired whether Mr. lie:wick and his
Cuumvi were in waiting.
' An answer in the affirmative being given, the Counsel, Mr.
Oua N Y and Mr. Iint.I.AND, were introduced.

Mr. (1 XI it 241.: V•, in a long apceell, contended, that there wed
no proof of malicious intention, on the part of Mr. Kenrick,
and that the libel was not published by him, or with his
authority.
Mr. 1/01.T.AND on being called on, did not think it neces.
nary to add any thing to what had been urged by his Learned
Friend.

Mr. DENMA said, that the period hail now arrived for
hint to express in detail the grounds on which he thought it his
,sluty to move the resolutions with which he intended, to con-
clude. Ile stood forward on this occasion upon the strength of
the most important constitutional principles, upon the principles
which committed to that House the duty of watching over the
conduct oftiudges. In former days Judges were sotnetimes op-
pointed to retain their situations during pleasure, and sometimes
during good behaviour, till in the reign of James 1., the latter,
tenure was entirely discontinued, and all Judges appointed only
during pleasure. The consequence of this had been to make
Judges completely subservient to the Crown. At the Revo.
lution it was determined that all Judges should henceforth be
appointr d upon the tenure of //rown/4 se belie gesserit, and this
wholesome principle was ratified and confirmed by the:Act of
.Settlement. In this situation, the tenure by which the Judges
held their offices, 'continued till Ole first of the lute King, when
they were made unretnoveable, notwithstanding the demise of
the Crown. The power of removal formerly retained absc.
lately by the Crown, could now only be exercised, upon
Address from both Houses of Parliament. This then wits tl •
• tenure by Which the twelve Judges of England held their seats,
and the saine,was the case with respect to the Judges \Valet.
The Welch Judges held their commission's under the 34th of
Henry the which conferred upon them the same power $
set were popeieted: by the Twelve Judges of England, and in
totitosetireat powers, they possessed within the Prim-
, eipality of \Vales the saute equitable jurisdiction which was
exercised in England by the Court oiChancery. The huh-
.vidual, on whose conduct and character they were about to
pronounce, was invested with tin authority in Vales similar to
that of the trlntrts of King's 'Bench and Ciimhion Pleas, and
-in 'addition, the further overwhelming authority of the Court of
Chsticery. ' Surely where such powers were entrusted, it was
,the duty of that House to watch with a' vigilant and jealous
eye, over the conduct of the indiViduals to Whose hands they .1
were committed. With respect to tlei Twelve Judges of Eng.
•land, this vigilauce anti jealousy were universally admitted to
%be the duty of Parliament. in the present case he was eon-
-fidentßiat they were equally its duty. Mr. Kenricle came be-
•fore them in a twotithi judicial character ; first, as one of the
,Justices of his-Majesty's Court of Great Session in Wales; and,
-aecOndly, as a Magistrate for the county of Surrey. He bat
abio been appointed Recorder of Dover, but that appointment
+bad not'yet received, and probably never night receive, the
neceiitary" approbation of the Crown. Mr. kenrlek held the
()trice of a Welch Judge upon the tenure of Inamdin se Lew.
oases*, therefore he could not be removed without the audio-
_

ray Of Parliament. It hid been very fairly'content etl I ty his
. I ;
Lion. and Learned Friend, that if the character of a Judge
Wil.3 so stained that no Minister would have dared to appoint
him, that was a sufficient cause upon which to ground the in-
terference of Parliament. The question then was as he had
formerly stated it—entirely one of degree, and he was prepared
to contend that the circumstances of this case were such, that
.-if the 'louse did not interfere, it
,would be guilty of an aban-
(hutment of the most important of its duties. The question
they had to decide was, whether the conduct of a .Judge
having been such, as to destroy all public confidence in his
character, to deprive him entirely, of the good opinion and
respect of society, be was not thereby
.rendered unlit to dis-
clierge the important duties of the judicial character. It
WAN perfectly true, as had been stated by his Learned Friend
in his eloquent speech at their bar, that libels had been
published against Air. Kenrick. But did it nut sound
strange to their care, that any Judge should apply to the
Court of King's Bench for a eilmintd information for a libel
published against him, and be refused ? 'Phis was a fact in the
case well worthy of observation ; but there was a previous fact
of the greatest importance, this Judge having persecuted a
poor men for stealing a shilling's worth of wood : not cnly was
the man instantly acqiiitted, but the Court refused the costs of
the prosecution. When Mr. Kenrick found it necessary to
apply to the Court of King's Bench for a criminal information,
the first step he had to take was to remove from himself by
affidavit every imputation. Now undoubtedly the more atro-
cious the libel, the easier it must have been to deny it, and the
more disposed the'"ourt must have been to grant the applica-
tion. lie had lok anxiously to the affidavit to see how the
I,e
imputations were re lied. Now what were the imputations ?
They were, that Mr. Kenrick had persecuted this poor man,
. awl that he had done so for the purpose of getting possession
9f a freehold which belonged to lino. Does be deny diet
fact ? Ile makes no such denial. lie. evades the charge
by denying diet he had ever tampered with the man's wife
.te persuade . him to plead guilty. The Honourable and
Learned Member then proceeded to comment on the insuf-
ficiency of the evidence produced against Franks. The only
feet proved was, that the trumpery piece of plank had been
foued upon his premises, laying. loose mid exposed to all tile
world. 100 ratan with either the slightest knowledge of law,
to the least portion. even of common sense, could have thought
the charge worthy of attention. The Magistrate who committed
Franks, must have been overpowered by the weight of Air.
Kenrick's authority. The mere possession of stolen property
-wits nothing. He contended, that as it was evidently an unjust ,
prosecution, there must be soine motive. But what motive ?
It wits not denied that there bad been great negotiation about
the freehold, or that Mr. Kenrick had a strong desire to obtain
it, but he accounted for that desire,by his wish to get rid of a
bad d
neighbour.' Let them look a little at that, the impeachment
or the character of Frank* was the first thing lie resorted to, so
they found it was the last. In his petition presented last night,
he repeated the story of the bloody knife; but why, he would
seek, if there bed been any truth in that circumstance, was it not
**urn to before die Court of King's Bench? And now with re.
end
iti ct to the charge of libel. The letter addressed to Mr. Colle,tt
,
published the Staro,ford News, he had a right to take us
leihrtabed with the sanction of Mr, Kenrick They were now en.
gaged in the exercise of all inquisitorial rather than a judicial
runt:Lion ; and they had aright to expect every explanation front
die paw whew conduct, WU impugned. Mr. Collett might have
Mien 'nod eel!, and he cOnsidered thei.gstertee of such explana-
,, dun, as he could have given full proof_t.hat.Ale. K ennek had
been cognizant Of the publication. There are tour separate
•• itHirei agaitnit Franks in dint-paper, which he calla a draft of
these he could prove that MreKenrick
,etspitniA ant ; every one of from the
ir 1 .
filed
,„keewt,..4o false, from his conduct, or front the a u uvits
%. 10,41 n in the Court of King's' Bepch. The first charge was

that of abetting the child in the theft she was said to have
committed. In this publication the articles were stated to
haVe been found under the clothes of Franks and his wife, and
this was the only circumstance of any importance as leading
to the inference of their having abetted the child—yet when
affidavits were to be filed in the King's Bench, and when Mr.
Kenrick had the strongest motives to assail the character of
Franks, not a syllable was sworn in support of this tact. What
is the next charge ?..--that the Magistrate, Mr. Peters, whose
sheep had been stolen, had abundant proof that Franks was the
thief. It certainly seems rather odd that a Magistrate should
have so much regard for a
What, however,
and attach so little
value to his own sheep,s to refuse to prosecute when he had
such abundant proof. however, was the proof? It was
such proof as Lord Bodies would not entertain for a moment.
Perhaps Mr. Burgess might have,entertained it. The real cul-
prit, however, was afterwards discovered and convicted. And
were they then to be told that these statements had been
made bona pie ':2 The Honourable Member for Yorkshire
might say go to a Jury. In truth, there were no disputed
facts for a Jury to try. The statements of Mr. Kenrick him-
self constituted the evidence against him. '1 hen come the
charge of the piece of wood, accompanied by the assertion that
Franks hi d been frequently pilfering before; of that Mr. Ken-
rick said he had no doubt whatever, but he never had distinct
proof against him till now. Why, when the criminal informa-
tion was to be moved for, there was not a person who would
venture to come forward and make an Affidavit, not even Mr.
Kenrick himself, that Franks was a man of general bad charac-
ter. His Learned Friend had very skilfully considered his
charge against Mr. Kenrick as three or four distinct charges—
it was but one, that of a corrupt anti malicious motive, to be
proved by several distinct facts. Now with respect to the appli.
cation of Mr. Kenrick to Lawson, the Clerk of the Peace, he bad
been mistaken in supposing that the latter bore testimony to the
good character of Franks. Into this mistake, however, he had
been led by the affidavit of Mr. Kenrick, in which lie stated dint
in his letter to Lawson, he had stated his opinion of Franks's
character. But the right of considering Mr. Kenrick as in a
dilemma, if not given by words, is given by conduct. If -he
thought. the character of Franks so bad, what right had he to
keep back a witness in order to favour his escape from justice?
Why should we wish to he excused from persecuting him ? It
was curious how these things follow each other. Franks was
the . abettor of theft by his daughter; he was Ithusell'a sheep.
stealer—a habitual nightly thief, and for these reasons Mr.
Kenrick wished to decline prosecuting him. The question,
whether he could avoid prosecuting after being bound over
was surely a strange question for a Judge to put to a Clerk of
the Peace. The lion. and Learned Gentleman then animad-
verted at great length upon the conduct of Mr. Kenrick towards
Franks whilst in prison. He inferred that his desire to induce
Franks at first to plead guilty, anti his pretence afterwards about
getting him off, arose equally from the de ire of Mr. Kenrick
to get possession of the freehold. After the facts lie had stated
he would ask the Right Hon. Gentleman if that man was tit
to exercise the functions of a criminal Judge, if he was fit
to retain the power he now had over the liberty,. the property,
and eseit the lives of individuals ? What after this would be the
confidence of the people in his integrity ? Would it be be-
lieved, that any poor man tried before him for stealing a
plank, fur instance, on the prosecution of any rich anti power-
ful neighbour, would have a chance of obtaining equal 'us.
tic° ? He 'irked, if lifter what had occurred, die Right Hon.
Gentleman would have recommended him as fit for die ju-
dicial seat, supposing him to have had a previous promise of
such recommendation ? If this question could only be an-
swered in the negative, it would then follow, in his judgment,
that he ought now to be removed. How strange it had been to
hear that this was en affitir oi' private character, as if a
Judge could lose his reputation and respectability only by dis-
graceful conduct on the Bench. He had been told that a charge
of this sort ought not to he brought forward by a lawyer.—
'.chose who thought so ought immediately to move to disqualify
lawyers front filling a seat in that House. After the exposition
he had given, he would say—" if such a man be fit to govern,
speak ?'' .He. had not met with a person, .after the dilciosures
in time Court of King's &melt, but what had said, surely
Mr. Kenrick will be removed. lie might lament the con.
sequences of the resolutions which be called upon the House
to adopt, upon the innocent friends end connections of Mr.
Kenrick ; but these incidental consequences were not to deter
the House front a great act of justice. He was, front his situa-
tion, to deal out the retributions of the law upon starving cul-
prits, who hail been led under the influence of strong tempta-
tion to the commission of offences ; he felt strongly,, therefore,
that there ought to be sonic sympathy for the natural feelings of
those who might have hereafter to be tried by Mr. Kenrick, and
that some reciprocity of duties and obligations should be ac-
knpwledged between .the higher and the lower classes of so-
ciety. Ile concluded by moving—
" That it appetite to this House that the charges against
%Villein' Kenrick, Esq.. one of the Justices of his Majesty's
. Court of Great Sessions in %t'ales had been fully proved, with
the exception 9f that charge which states him to have borne
-testimony to the character of John Franks, in aletter to the
Clerk of time Peace for time County ofSurrey. '
___. ___

That Wm. Kenrick has laved himself unfit for the exer-
cise. of judicial functions.
". That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty,
praying him to remove the said Wm. Kenrick."
The ATTORNEY...GENERAL did not present himself to
the House as the advocate of Mr. Kenrick. lle had no doubt
that his Hon. and Learned ...Friend had been actuated in this
proceeding by the, moat honourable and purest motives. But let
them look at what the charge upon the table was, and at that
which it had been attempted to establish. It would not be per.
mitred in any Court, and he did not think it ought to be per-
mitted in that House to prefer one charge and to establish an.
other, and a More serious one. The charge upon the table was,
that alr..Kenrick had preferred an accusation, before a neigh-
bouring illagitstrate, , against Franks, without sufficient proof;
but it contained not one word imputing corruption or malice
and yet the whole aim and object of his Learned Friend had
been to es:abtisli the existence of a malicious motive. His
Learned Friend well knew that before another tribunal he
would have been told that his address was Inapplicable to the
charge. No man ought to be condemned upon a charge dif.
ferent to that which he had been called upon to answer. It
would be gross Injustice towards 111 r. Kenrick, were they so to
proceed. How could they be sure that,il he had been charged
with malice, he would not have pursued an entirely thiliaent
course in meeting that charge. How could they know but that
the imattructions given to the Learned Counsel who appeared at the
bar on his behalf, might, in that case, have been totally dif-
ferent. If his Hon. and Leurned Friend consulted his own ex-
cellent understanding, be would immediately feel the fierce of
this. But what the charge of it?- it was one which actually im-
puted no offence. There Wits no law which constituted it an
offenceeto prefer an accusation upon insufficient evidence. To
prefer an accusation upon insufficient evidence was a proceed.
ing which did not according to law even afford grounds for a
civil action. The charge in its terms neither contained any
timing which was criminal in the eye of the law, nor any thing
for which the law had provided a civil remedy. But was it
proved that Mr. Kenrick had exercised any influence over Mr.
Burgess, the Magistrate who committed Franks Was it even
proved that he had seen hini upon -the subject ? If this is mat-
ter of charge against Mr. Kenrick, a similar charge might with
at least equal propriety be preferred against Mr. Burgess. But
it had not even been suggested that any undue influence was
need in respect to the evidence upon which Franks was commit.
ted. Nu attempt had been made to impeach the character of the
witnesses who gave that evidence ; they told the same story to
Mr. Kenrick, as they told before the Grand Jury, upon which
the Grand Jury found the Bill, and,upon which he had previ-
ously been coMmitted by Mr. Burgess. And yet the House were
called upon to say that the Motive which led to this prosecution
were corrupt and malicious.—(llear, hear I)—The question of
the value, of the log was not one for their consideration. They
had only to look at the tact and to see whether the circumstances
afforded reasonable round of belief that the theft had been
committed. And could any one entertain a doubt but that the
property was stolen ? The lion. and Learned Gentleman re-
marked, upon the evidence relating to this part of the case, and
confidently asked the House whether it afforded just grounds
for such an investigation as the pesent ? But then it was said,
' there had been a subsequent trial and ecquitel, of which he
would speak presently. It had been advanced as a charge
against Mr. Kenrick, in the Morning Chronicle, that he was
Influenced to the prosecution of Franks, by motives of malice
arising from the refusal of the latter to sell his cottage, and by
the hope of obtaining possession Of it while Franks remained in
prison. Now the transactions respecting the cottage took place
six years before the prosecution was thought of, enti, as Mr. K.
Awed in reference to this charge, after he had altogether aban,
cloned the. wish to possess it. lie had in the mean dine pur-
chased another cottage which answered his purpose, and refused
to buy a better one situated under the same roof as -Franke.—
His Learned Friend had said that Mr. Kenrick had not denied
the imputation of corrupt motives ; but in the affidavit upon the
table of the House, Mr. Kenrick directly swore that he was not
influenced in the prosecution by malicious motives, but solely
by a sense of public duty. Then it was said that another cause
of Mr. Kenrick', malice arose from Franks having refused to
let -Mtn make a right of way across his enclosure.- Now what
were the facts of this pert of the case, as stated by Mr. Ken.
rick ? He had consented to accommodate Franks, and Gates
his neighbour, with a piece of
.ground from a meadow of
his which was -contiguous to -them cottages, in exejiange for
.an equal portion of some poor land which they 'possessed upon
a common. After the land had been parcelled out, Mr. Ken-
rick apPlied to Franks to allow a right of way to be made
across his part to enable Gates to get to the other. This Franks
refused and Mr. Kenrick determined to have nothing further
to do with them. Thus upon every point the affidavit of Mr.
Kenrick denied the grounds upon whioh malice was charged
against hies fitted which it was-competent for the accusing party

to have proved by witnesses at the bar, although no attempt
had been made to do it. He was therefore confident the House
would see that this first part of the charge had not been made
out by his Honourable and Learned Friend in such a manner
as to call for their interference. It was next..charged upon
Mr. Kenrick that he had published a libel upon the poor man
whom he had so maliciously prosecuted; but this charge, like
the other, had not been attempted•to be made out by the least
shadow of evidence. It was incumbent upon the party bring,;
ing a charge of this kind against another to prove it, and no
to call upon the accused to.disprove by evidence whatd oni
been charged by assertion. But here the House wee:Ville
upon to infer the truth of a charge *antic it was brotulf7 as-
serted, and without any other earthleesison... 4t4was the first
time that he had ever heard any person standinkti the situation
of a public prosecutor, put forth such an axiom, and sure be was
that such a thing had never been heard of in a Court of Justice;
_;Cheers.)—No evidence whatever hind been offered to prove
the fact of Mr. Kenrick having authorised the publication of
his letter in the Stamford Paper. The letter was written to
Air. Collett, a near connection and relative of Mr. Kenrick, in
answer to an inquiry about the circumstances of the case. It was
then sent by Mr. Collett fur publication in Drakard's Stamford
Paper, but not with the knowledge of Mr. Kenrick. The Hon.
and Learned Gentleman then read the letter, and contended
that from its general tenor the writer could havenot intended it
for publication. Then let him ask the House, if thiii letter was
not intended to be published, but only written to a private
friend and relation, and if the other charges of Malicious and
corrupt natures were as unfounded as he bad shewn them to be,
whether they were prepared to visit Mr. K. not only with this
prosecution, but with the result proposed by his lion. and
Learned Friend ? With regard to the contents of this letter,
the charge against Franks of having been cognizant of the theft
committed by his daughter, there was ground fur such a belief,
and it appeared upon the evidence of Franks himself, that such
a belief was honestly entertained at the time when the facts-oc-
curred, by Mr. Kenrick, and that the charge was not made upon
the occasion, for the purpose of libelling Franks in this letter.
As to the charge respecting the sheep, he admitted it to be un-
true ; but Mr. Kenrick had received the information, and be-
lieved it, long before this letter was written. But supposing
the fact to be otherwise, he had yet to learn, that the House of
Commons ought to come to such a decision as that proposed by
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, because a 'person holding a
judicial situation, wrote a private letter to a relation, contain-
ing libellous charges against an individual with whom he bad
been concerned in transactions of this nature. He had gonemi-
nutely into the points of evidence wh MI bore more directly upon
the merits of the question, in justice to Mr. Kenrick; or, he
should rather say, in justice to the case, for he had no connec-
tion with Air. Kenrick, and only delivered to the House the
impression which the case bad made upon his mind as tofindivi-
dual member. No man was more anxious than he to preserve
the seat of just ice- pure, and no man would be more ready to take
measures to prevent its being sullied by persons whose character
wi.s such as to render them unfit to administer justice to Eng-
lishmen. He then refered to the conduct of Mr. Kenrick in re-
spect to his application to the Clerk of the Peace, and to the
course to he adopted at the trial, contending that it was merciful
towards Franks and his unfortunate family. Upon the subject
of what passed in the Court of King's Bench an erroneous
opinion had gone forth that the decision of the Court was
given upon the merits of the case. Nothing could be more mis-
taken than this opinion.' The merits were not opened at all ;
only one Counsel was heard, and that against Air. Kenrick.
The case was never decided upon its merit, but upon a point of
form. He had been led to say thus.much partly from personal
feeling. Ile kneW Air. Kenrick early in life, at the University,
and at the time when his duties required his attendance in Lon-
don. lie was the Counsel engaged against Air. Kenrick in this
case before the WM of King's Bench, and it had been said that
he pressed it somewhat hardly. it was, perhaps, 'difficult to de-
fine the duty of Counsel, but he always' felt that it imposed the
utmost exertion in behalf of those who placed their cause in his
hands. He did this in addressing the Court against Air. Ken-
rick's application.; but if his Learned. Friend had been per-
mitted by the practice of the Court to reply, he believed that
the greatest part of his statement would have.been answered.—
Under all these views of the case which he had detailed to the
House, he could not see the slightest ground for adopting the
course recommended by his, Hon. and Learned Friend, and
Ishould therefore meet the question with a decided negative.—
(Hear, hear ! and cry of " Question.").

hiir E. KNATCHBULL put a question to the Attorney.
General, which we could sat catch, respecting the practice of
the Court of King's, in such cases as that of the applica-
tion made on behalf of Mr. :Kenrick.
The ATTORNIP.GENERAL explained.
Mr. DENMAN rose amidst a general call for the question,
and stated that Atter what had passed he should not divide the
House.—(Cheers.)—lf that cheer implicit any triumph over
Idin— ui (Crs of ileac," and " No".j.—he begged to state that
his opinion was entirely unaltered, and that if he had the giving
away and the coutroul of judicial offices, I.ir. Kenrick should
not continue to hold his another day.,-(Hear l)—The Lion.
and Learned Gentleman made some further coniments upon the
evidence, and expressed his satisfaction that both parts of the
charge were fully made out. He thought that if the House had
nut been annoyed. with the length to which these inquiries ne-
cessarily went, they would have given the case more attention,
anti come to the decision which he thought it deserved.
The resolutions were then put and •negutived without a
division.