would be, to report the evidence, to have it printed; and if his learned friend did not forthwith call on the House for its judgment, it was competent for any hon. member to do so. Mr. Canning said, that the motion appeared to be for a dissolution of the committee, without taking any further proceedings, and without any pledge that they would take further notice of the subject. He thought it would be better not to dismiss it in this way. If it would not interfere with the learned gentleman's convenience, the subject might be resumed tomorrow, or any other day he might appoint. Certainly, some motion should be made on the subject. The learned gentleman might do so so soon as the evidence was printed. 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. Denman said, his intention certainly was, that the evidence should be printed. After hearing that evidence, and a long cross-examination of the witness it would not raise the character of the House summarily to dispose 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 had only heard viva voce. The Speaker said, the impression on his mind was, that some specific resolution ought 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. That resolution, when laid before the House, was in their hands, and they might deal with it as they thought fit. he had stated was, that there was no sufficient ground for instituting any further proceeding. Mr. J. Williams said, the counsel had been asked, whether they wished to call any witnesses in behalf of Mr. Kenrick, and they had declined to do so. Evidence had been heard in support of the charge, and Mr. Kenrick's counsel had been heard in his defence. The main question, then, before the committee was, when, and in what manner, the committee should come to a decision on the merits of the case? He certainly thought it would be premature to come to a decision before the evidence was printed, and put into the hands of members. Mr. Denison said, he was prepared to vote with the right hon. Secretary. Of Mr. Kenrick he had little knowledge. Though they were neighbours, they were opposed in political matters; but no private feeling should ever prevent him from doing what he conceived to be his duty. Knowing the party against whom the searchwarrant 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 for proceeding further in the case. Sir J. Wrottesley said, that they ought to come to some desicion 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. The learned counsel had stated that they had no evidence to bring forward. This constituted a fair trial; and he would say 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, when the charge was made against a respectable farmer, he should have been exceedingly cautious as to the course which he adopted, and taken very nearly the same course that Mr. Kenrick had done. When a warrant 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 oppor-lightly was a most unwarrantable abuse of authority. While he admitted this, he 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 counsel had never opened his lips. Mr. Peel said, he retained the opinion which he originally professed; namely, that the course most consistent with justice was, that the committee should come to a resolution, that there was not sufficient matter to put Mr. Kenrick upon his trial. Mr. Western perfectly agreed with the right hon. gentleman in the sentiments which he had just expressed. Mr. J. Williams said, that a full tunity had been afforded to Mr. Kenrick of making a complete defence. He could not concur, therefore, in the opinion of the right hon. Secretary, that Mr. Kenrick had not been heard. Mr. Secretary Peel observed, that what What was he to infer from that circumstance? That one of the most able and prudent counsel at the bar did not dare to touch upon this fact. He must suppose that the learned counsel felt that culpability was attached to the transaction. He was not the accuser of Mr. Kenrick. If severe censure on his conduct were proposed, he certainly would not agree to it; but, on the other hand, he could not for the honour of the magistracy of the country, suffer his conduct to pass unnoticed. Mr. Secretary Peel observed, that all he had said was, that the evidence before the committee did not warrant them in instituting any further proceedings. The charge brought against Mr. Kenrick was, undoubtedly, a heavy one. It was no less than that of having suppressed and defeated a charge of felony, on account of the supposed connexion between the party accused and a servant of his own. This charge had been entirely refuted; for it was shown that Mr. Kenrick had no wish to screen the offender. The subsequent part of Mr. Kenrick's conduct was, undoubtedly, extremely injudicious; but it was impossible for the House to throw out of its consideration, that an action had been brought against him on account of this conduct, and that he had been put to the expense of 2001. No charge of corruption had been proved against him; and with respect to any misconduct arising from error of judgment and intemperance, he really thought the House ought to rest satisfied with the adjudication of a court of justice. Mr. Maberly thought the House was bound to embody in its resolution, an expression of its disapprobation of the conduct of Mr. Kenrick. If this course were not adopted, the people would not believe that that House was inclined to interfere when magistrates were proved to have acted improperly. Mr. Wynn said, that the proposition of his right hon. friend was far from involving any approbation of the conduct of Mr. Kenrick. Could it be said that Mr. Canfor was without redress? By no means. He had received the redress which the law allowed him; and if any gentleman was of opinion that, on the testimony received, this was a case to justify an address to the Crown, praying the removal of Mr. Kenrick from his situation, it was quite competent for such member to submit such a proposition; but for himself, he could see no ground for any further proceeding. Mr. Baring thought that, in the present state of the opinion of the committee, it was not necessary to carry this discussion any further 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 indiscreet and reprehensible; but the question now was, whether it had been so much so as to justify the House in addressing the Crown for his removal. He must confess that 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 printed. This could not be done by to-morrow, but by Monday he thought it might. The learned member might then state the case as the evidence disclosed it, and propose any measure he thought necessary. 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 hon. friend should be put, the learned gentleman, if he had any thing criminatory 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 decision it should come to. If it were thought necessary that time should be taken for this purpose, he was content that the postponement should take place. He had received an intimation, that the evidence could not be printed in time for to-morrow He was therefore willing that the committee should be adjourned until Monday with the understanding that the learned gentleman should be then prepared to say what he thought ought to be done. Mr. Denman gladly accepted this proposal. He was not now prepared to move any particular resolution on the subject. If was possible that he might, upon fur ther consideration, think it unnecessary to say any more upon the subject ; although, Mr. Goulburn thought, that an immediate decision might have been come to consistently with the justice of the case. Those who had heard the evidence were much more competent than any other persons to come to that decision; because although others might read the evidence when printed, they could know nothing of the manner in which that evidence had been given. if that should be his determination, he | they were about to pursue was at once confessed that his opinion must undergo both consistent with justice and with the such a revolution as he could not at pre- dignity of the House. sent contemplate. The case, as it stood before the committee, was one which concerned the fair administration of justice, and in this respect it had unanswerable claims to the most serious attention. He could 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, he would propose a motion on Monday: if not he would willingly withdraw the proceeding he had begun. He had spoken to no one on the subject, and, as his hon. friends would testify, he had asked for no support from them. He had only preferred the charge contained in the petition; and the evidence had, in his opinion, substantiated the allegations of that petition. Mr. Canning said, that when the subject came again 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 first was one which had already been tried, and for which he had paid the penalty in a civil action. The second was a charge of refusing a warrant, not one tittle of evidence in support of which was to be relied on. Mr. Peel was still of opinion, that the committee ought at once to have discharged the duty imposed upon it. He could not understand upon what pretext it could be said, that the committee ought not now to do that, which was always done in every branch of the administration of criminal justice in the country. Grand juries came to a decision upon deliberations not longer, and common juries sent criminals to execution upon an immediate view of the case, and after evidence had been heard. He however consented to the postponement; not for the reasons which had been urged in support of such a step, but because several members of the committee had not stayed to discharge the duty which they had entered upon. The Chairman then reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again on Monday. HOUSE OF LORDS. Monday, June 27. JUDGES' SALARIES BILL.] On the order of the day for the third reading, Earl Grosvenor took that opportunity of making some observations on sinecure offices. The office of lord justice general of Scotland, though of that description; was still maintained. With respect to the sale of offices in courts of law, he was glad that practice was to be put an end to. He also objected to the unnecessary increase of salaries. The learned lord who approved of the bills on the table must surely wish that they had been introduced ten years ago. He understood, however, that it was not intended to extend the inquiry to the court of Chancery. The Earl of Liverpool said, that the object of the regulations was, that wherever there was business, the duties should be performed by efficient officers. As to the office filled by his noble and learned friend, the salary derived from it was before the House, and there was no man who knew the duties which attached to that office would think the reward sufficient. The situation of the lord chancellor was differ, ent from that of the chiefs of the other courts; for no sale of offices was allowed in Chancery. With respect to the puisne judges, with a knowledge of the labours they had to perform, could any one think them too highly remunerated by 5,000l. a-year? Mr. Hume thought nothing could be The Lord Chancellor complained of the more suitable to the justice of the case, misrepresentations and calumnies which than that the House should deliberate be- had gone forth respecting the emoluments fore they come to a decision. He should of his office, although the amount of its be sorry if any notion were to get abroad, profits had been already given in accounts that the committee had not done their before the House of Commons. Perhaps duty in postponing this question. He it was thought that this mode of calumthought, on the contrary, that the course nious_misrepresentation was the way to VŎL. XIII. 4 T get him out of office they were mistaken who thought so; he would not yield to such aspersions, nor shrink from asserting what he owed to himself. Had he been treated with common justice, he should not now, perhaps, have remained lord chancellor; but he would not be driven from his office by calumnious attack. Let him only be treated with common justice, and in five minutes his office should be at any body's disposal. From the accounts which had been furnished to him of his emoluments as lord chancellor, by those who best knew the amount, apart from his income as Speaker of the House of Lords, he was happy to say, that the lord chief justice of the court of King's-bench had received a larger income from his office. He quoted from the average accounts of the last three years; and he would further say, that in no one year, since he had been made lord chancellor, had be received the same amount of profit which he enjoyed while at the bar. Strange, then, it was, that he should be attacked, as he had been, by mis-statements and misrepresentation of every kind. Had he remained at the bar, and kept the situation he held there, he solemnly declared he should not be oneshilling a poorer man than he was at that moment, notwithstanding his office. His noble friend (earl Grosvenor) should not have blamed him for not bringing this subject before the House earlier. It had often been brought forward: and it was thought that the emoluments arising from the sale of offices should not be interfered with; because, had they been abolished, the chief justices must have received a compensation in some other way. When the salary of the puisne judges had been augmented from time to time, no augmentation had taken place in that of the chiefs, because they were considered as deriving part of their emoluments from this source. It could not for a moment be supposed that, having entered on the laborious duties of their office under the conviction that its emoluments were to be secured to them by law, they could be turned adrift without any regard to their rights. The noble earl entirely misunderstood the question with regard to sinecure offices. Bills had repeatedly been sent up from the other House for abolishing them; and they had been resisted, because the persons who brought them here did not understand the question. It was insinuated that because the deputy did all the drudgery of the office, therefore the principal was of no use. The doctrine was founded on a mistake: the presence of the principal might not always be required, but it was applied on proper occasions; and if his responsibility was not always interposed, the consequences might be extremely injurious to the suitors and the public. He the (lord Chancellor) would pledge himself to be as active as any noble lord in correcting abuses, but he would perform his duty with a due regard to the rights of others. The reason why, in the present bill, there was no clause, regulating offices in the court of Chancery was, that a commission was now sitting on the state of that court. Much misrepresentation had gone abroad concerning his conduct, since he had presided over it; but whatever he might suffer from such calumny and misstatement, he enjoyed the consolation, that he had been incorrupt in his office, and he could form no better wish for his country than that his successor should be penetrated with an equal desire to execute his duties with fidelity. The feelings and fate of an individual were in themselves of small importance to the public, and he the (lord chancellor) might be sacrificed to the insults which he was daily receiving; but he begged noble lords to reflect that he might not be the only sacrifice. If the object was, as it appeared to be, to pull down the reputation, and to throw discredit on the motives and conduct of men in high official situations-if every man who occupied an eminent station in the church or the state was to become the object of slander and calumny-then their lordships might rest convinced, that their privileges as peers could not long be respected. The bill was then read a third time. RATE OF INTEREST IN INDIA.] The Marquis of Hastings moved, that the opinion of the judges be heard on the construction of the act for regulating the interest of money in India. Lord Chief Justice Best accordingly delivered the opinion of the judges in favour of the bill on the noble marquis. The act for restricting the interest of money to 12 per cent was, he said, to be interpreted according to its letter, as it was a penal statute; and by its literal interpretation it was only to be enforced in the dominions of the company. It could not be construed as extended to Foreign states in alliance with the British power. It could not regulate the transactions of borrowers The bill was read a second time. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Monday, June 27. or lenders in the dominions of the native | pay the sum or sums of money thereon princes where British jurisdiction did not becoming due, in specie, within the space extend. If borrowers there suffered from of three days after demand made therethe oppressive acts of those with whom on by the holder of such draughts or notes, they had money dealings, they might apply it should be lawful for justices of the for protection to their own government, peace, magistrates of the session, &c., and not to that of the company. In this upon complaint to that effect being made construction of the law, he was supported to them, and they were thereby required to by decisions of the Supreme Court of summon every such person against whom Bengal. such complaint should have been preferred, and after examining parties and witnesses on oath, they were empowered, if the complaint should be established to their satisfaction, to award the sum due;" and such sum, with costs, in default of payment, might be levied by sale and distress on the goods, &c. of the party proceeded against. In a subsequent bill this valuable clause had been unfortunately omitted. Such being the case, he thought the House ought not to lose a moment's time in re-enacting it, so that it might become a part of the law of the land on this momentous subject. It was calculated that 997. out of every 100l. in circulation in the country parts of England was issued in notes of the country bankers; and the consequence of this redundant issue of paper was, that out of London there was little or no gold to be got. He was sorry that he did not at that moment see the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Peel) in his place; for he would only upon this topic beg to refer the right hon. Secretary to his own definition of a currency in that well-known act, usually called Mr. Peel's bill. PETITION OF F. JONES COMPLAINING OF COUNTRY BANK NOTES NOT BEING PAID IN GOLD. Mr. Hume reverted to the petition which he had presented to the House on the 22nd instant, from a person named Jones, complaining that a bank at Bristol had refused to pay him in cash, on demand, the amount of their notes, which he presented for that purpose. He had since had an interview with the petitioner, and, after every requisite inquiry, he found that the statements contained in the petition were perfectly correct. The notes that had been presented were for 61. and 45l. He held in his hand the very identical notes. He had been informed, that the refusal on the part of the bank, had arisen from an idea, that the bankers were not compellable to pay the amount of their notes in cash. A great misunderstanding prevailed with respect to provincial notes. In this case, the bank had offered to substitute Bank of England notes for its own, but had refused to pay them in gold, and this was the precise point which he wished to bring before the House. A country banker's refusal to give gold for his notes was, in his opinion, as bad as a refusal to pay a promissory note when due. In order to keep the currency of the country in a healthy state, care should be taken that the supply did not exceed the demand, as whenever it did it had the effect of causing a rise in the prices of articles of every description. This was an evil which it was the duty of ministers to guard against as carefully as possible, and when it did take place, to remedy without delay. By the 37th of Geo. 3, c. 32, commonly called the Cash Suspension bill, it was provided (sect. 3), "that if any person, being liable for the payment of any such notes and draughts as might be issued in pursuance of that act, should object to It was quite clear to his (Mr. Hume's) mind, that the country bankers paper which was afloat had nothing of that character which attached to "currency in the sense that term was used in the act he spoke of. His reasons for again moving that this petition be brought up were, that it regarded a matter of extreme importance to the country at large, and that the petitioner had felt himself to be reflected on by some observations that, on a former night, had fallen from an hon. baronet. Mr. Hart Davis observed, that it was unnecessary for him to say, that the firm in question was as respectable a firm as any in the country. He apprehended that the subject matter of the present case arose out of the circumstance of some intemperate warmth having been displayed by the party complaining, in demanding payment of his notes; which circumstance had occasioned the display of a little warmth of the same kind on the |