Mr. Denisonsaid, he had received a petition from Mr. Kenrick, whose case was before the House on Friday last, with a request that it might be presented. He would, therefore, move that it be printed, in order that it might be in the hands of members before the discussion on Mr. Kenrick's case tomorrow.
The petition was read, and in substance stated, that, about eleven or twelve years ago, James Rose, a constable, at Betchworth, who, he believed, had died in 1816, came to him and stated, that two sheep had been driven from a field belonging to Henry Peters, esq.; that one of them had been much mutilated and killed; that he had found a knife near the spot, which he knew to belong to Franks, having seen him use it; that he had also found near the same spot, a paper which appeared to belong to Franks, and that both knife and paper were bloody; that he mentioned the matter to no one else, until he came to him to ask his advice about the matter; that the petitioner advised Rose, the constable, to say nothing about the affair to any one else, until he stated the circumstance to Mr. Peters, to whom he advised the constable immediately to go; but that Mr. Peters, it appeared, did not think proper to do any thing therein. That, under the impression that these particulars had been communicated to Mr. Peters, he, upon an attack having been made upon him in "The Morning Chronicle," wrote a letter to Mr. Peters, inclosing a draft of an affidavit referring to the circumstances, thinking that they would be remembered by Mr. Peters; but that he found the circumstance had escaped the recollection of Mr. Peters. That upon receiving an answer to the above effect from Mr. Peters, he struck the matter out of the draft of affidavit. That, considering the draft as useless, he 567 had thrown it aside, and it could not be discovered. He grayed the House to take these circumstances into consideration when they came to discuss his case. The petitioner stated, that he had found the original letter of Mr. Peters, in which it was stated, that Mr. Peters had no recollection of granting any warrant against Franks; and as to the sheep, it was merely a matter of suspicion at the time, and that the real thief had been discovered, tried, and convicted. A copy of this letter was subjoined to the petition upon the same paper.
§ The Speakerrequested the hon. member to state in what character this paper was presented; for, as far as he could understand it, there was no proper prayer to it.
Mr. Denisonsaid, that the prayer was, that the House would consider the statement. The object was, to have it printed, and put into the hands of members before they entered upon the discussion of the case.
§ The Speakersaid, that if it was a petition, the House would be much inclined to receive it, as great latitude was allowed to petitioners, especially to such as stood in the situation of the individual accused. But then, if it was no petition, but simply a defence, that was matter for his counsel and evidence; and he did not know how the House could receive this paper in the double character of petition and defence. It was certainly contrary to the usual practice.
Mr. Wynnobserved, that the paper was merely a defence, and no petition, and had a copy of a letter attached to it on the same paper, which could not be regularly annexed to a petition.
Mr. Abercrombysaid, that this was certainly a most extraordinary and irregular proceeding. The House had gone into a committee on the charge, and had allowed Mr. Kenrick to attend by his counsel, witnesses, and agents. But, after he had an opportunity of fully making his defence, was he now to come with a statement of his own view of the facts? Any statement he had to make would be made by his counsel; but it was not to be tolerated, that he should proceed in this most extraordinary and irregular manner. How did the case stand with respect to Mr. Peters? He had brought a charge against that most respectable gentleman in his absence, after he had an opportunity of cross-examining him at the bar, and had declined to do so. He expressed his 568 surprise that Mr. Peters should have forgot such and such circumstances; and now wished that this paper should be printed and circulated among the members, when Mr. Peters was absent. If the House had any inclination to do justice, it would not suffer such a paper to be laid on its table.
Mr. Denisonsaid, he had considered it his duty to present the petition, and the House would dispose of it as it thought proper.
Mr. Wynnwished to ask the Speaker, whether it was regular to present a petition with a copy of a letter referred to in the body of it subjoined to the petition, on the same paper?
§ The Speakerreplied, that it was irregular, and that there was the double objection, that the copy only was produced, the original being in existence. It was obvious that the paper could not be printed.
§ Mr. Peelsaid, that the House certainly would be extremely unwilling to refuse, upon a mere point of form, to hear any thing which an accused person might think material for his defence; but this was certainly not a petition, and no injustice would be done by rejecting the paper presented in this shape, since every statement of that kind might be stated by counsel in the defence.
§ The petition was withdrawn.