Sitting of 14 April 1825

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—FORGERY OF NAMES TO A PETITION.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, that he rose to present a petition which complained, and complained most justly, of a gross breach of the privileges of that House, and of a most unjustifiable violation of the right of petition. The petition he held in his hand was from certain undersigned Protestant inhabitants of the town of Ballinasloe, and adjoining parishes. They stated, that having understood from the votes of parliament, that on the 17th of March last, a petition, alleged to be from the Protestant inhabitants of that town, had been presented

1339
by the right hon. baronet opposite (sir J. Newport), in support of the Catholic Association, and in favour of further concessions to the Catholics: so soon as they heard that such a petition was presented, they were anxious to see the petition, as printed at length, and the names attached to it. They were, on perusing the document, not a little surprised to see thirteen of their own names attached to that forged document. These petitioners now declare, that their names were, wholly without their knowledge, affixed to that petition: that, in truth, their opinions were opposed to those very points, which, in the forged document, they were alleged to have recommended. That was not, however, the present question. The object was, to decide, whether an inquiry was not now necessary. It was useless to dilate on the evils that must follow, unless the communication of the people with the House of Commons was guarded from imposition and fraud. It was most unjust towards the individuals, whose names were fraudulently affixed: it was most unfair towards members, who could not make the fullest inquiry; for it would be a most grievous burthen on the members of that House, if they were to be compelled to institute such a particular investigation on the subject of every petition sent to them. It was, therefore, the duty of that House to take such steps as would prevent a repetition of such a fraud—which, as it affected the privileges of parliament, was a gross insult; and, as it trenched upon the right of petition, a great detriment. He should, therefore, after laying the petition on the table, move for the appointment of a select committee to inquire into the allegations, with the view of discovering the authors of such an imposition. The result of such a course would, even for the purposes of caution, be most salutary.
Sir John Newportsaid, that if the subject had not been brought forward by the right hon. secretary, it had been his intention to have introduced it that very evening. Every member of that House was equally interested in the subject as himself; for they were all liable to be similarly imposed upon. He had received the former document, as he had received nine-tenths of all the petitions which he presented to the House; namely, by post. It came accompanied by a string of resolutions, stated to have passed at the meeting where the petition was agreed to.
1340
These resolutions appeared to have been regularly moved and seconded. The names of the parties thus moving and seconding were stated; and it had all the details of the formal expression of the meeting which it professed to be. He had, under such circumstances, presented the petition, and was much surprised recently to have received a letter from the parties, whose names were attached, stating that it was a forgery. Fraud was apparent, and had been grossly practised on him. He had no local knowledge of Ballinasloe, nor of the parties. He, therefore, in answer to the present petitioners, pointed out to them, that the more expedient mode to detect the authors of the imposition, was to make inquiries on the spot. He, however, most heartily concurred with the motion of the right hon. Secretary; and he trusted he stood too fairly with the House, to feel it necessary to disclaim any knowledge on his part, of any such improper attempt to impose on the judgment of parliament.
Mr. Secretary Peelobserved, that there was not the remotest idea in the mind of any man to impute any blame to the right hon. baronet.
The petition was laid on the table, and a select committee was appointed "to inquire into the circumstances under which a paper professing to be a petition from the Protestant parishioners of the town of Ballinasloe, and the united parishes of Kilclooney and Creagh, was presented to this House on the 17th day of March last, and report the same to the House."

LINEN TRADE OF IRELAND.
Sir H. Parnellsaid, he had been induced to give notice of his intention to move for the appointment of a select committee, to take into consideration the state of the Linen Trade of Ireland, in consequence of his having been intrusted with certain memorials from a considerable number of the linen merchants of Dublin, and which had been duly presented by him to the Treasury. He had, however, received, since that notice, an intimation from his majesty's government, that they were disposed to move for a select committee for the same purpose. Under such circumstances, he should leave the subject with satisfaction in such efficient hands. He understood, that the consideration of such committee would be first directed to those laws which affected foreign yarn and foreign dressed flax.
Sir G. Hill,after observing that it would be much more satisfactory that the subject should undergo the investigation of a committee above stairs, moved "that a select committee be appointed to consider the laws which regulate the linen trade of Ireland, particularly such as relate to foreign linen yarn and foreign dressed flax."
Mr. Maberlywas extremely desirous that the consideration of the protecting duties should form one of the objects of the committee. The present condition of those duties was such as must be altogether ruinous to the linen trade of Ireland. He entirely agreed in the wisdom of the general principle on which the right hon. gentlemen opposite were proceeding with respect to commercial affairs; but he was certainly desirous that they would travel by degrees. All he asked, however, on the present occasion was, that the subject of protecting duties should be comprehended in the labours of the committee.
Sir G. Hillreplied, that the suggestion of the hon. gentleman might be very advantageously made to his right hon. friend, the President of the Board of Trade, but that it could not properly form one of the topics of consideration of the committee for which he had just moved.
Mr. Hume,while he was of opinion, that the question of the duties was one of great importance, certainly thought that it could not be advantageously comprehended in the inquiries of the present Committee.
Mr. V. Fitzgeraldapproved of the appointment of the committee, and thought it better to confine the inquiry at present to the two objects stated in the motion.
The motion was then put and agreed to.

EPISCOPAL UNIONS AND PLURALITIES IN IRELAND.
Sir J. Newportrose to move for leave to bring in a bill "to limit the power of holding a plurality of benefices, and to repeal the statutes, granting to the archbishops and bishops the power of forming episcopal unions in Ireland." The only pretences held out for the reason of the case in regard to unions were, continuity, weight of debt, and inability to meet the expenses. What would the House say to a parish connected with another, under these powers of union, which were eighteen miles asunder? He wished to draw the consideration of the House to this question, because it was one which involved the well-being of the
1342
established church in Ireland. It was right that the body of the people in that country, who adhered to the established religion, should have the fair means of religious instruction. What he had to offer to the House on this subject would be deduced from the actual statement of the archbishops and bishops of Ireland themselves, contained in the papers laid before the government on the state of the church in Ireland. The primate of Ireland stated, that the union of parishes in that country might rank amongst the greatest defects of the system by which it was governed. The episcopal unions, it should be observed, ought to be distinguished from those made by the lord-lieutenant and the privy council. The former were not placed under the same restrictions as the latter. If the House would examine the statements on the subject, which were laid before parliament in 1811 and 1820, they would at once perceive the evils arising from this system. He had taken the trouble to inquire into the grounds on which these episcopal unions were formed, and had come to the conclusion, that there was not, in reality, a statute allowing archbishops and bishops to make them. There was an act of parliament of the reign of Charles 2nd, which gave a semblance of that species of power; but, in his opinion, the construction placed upon that statute was not correct. He had also examined into the power exercised on this point by the archbishops and bishops of England, and had discovered that, with the exception of the bishop of Norwich, no such authority was delegated to the prelates of this country. If such a power existed at all, it would be more likely to have been allowed in England than in Ireland; because, here it would be more directly controlled by the force of public opinion.—The right hon. baronet then proceeded to allude to the evidence which had been laid before parliament, relative to the episcopal unions, and narrated several cases where the parishes thus united extended over a very large tract of country; some of them being not less than eighteen miles distant from each other. It was impossible, where parishes were thus widely separated, that a clergyman could attend to the duties of both. In one union, three parishes were connected twenty-six miles long, and nine miles broad; in another union, the tract which it comprised was forty miles long. The conduct of the

1343
archbishops and bishops had heretofore been very generally at variance with that which they ought to pursue; for, though they made those unions, they must have seen the evils that arose from them. In Kilcooly, six parishes, several miles distant from each other, were united in 1809.—The right hon. baronet then adverted to cases of a similar description which had occurred in Roscommon and Sligo. In one instance, where, before a parish was united to another, there were 16,000 inhabitants, the number was increased by the union to 22,800. The curate of the parish of Boyle, in the diocese of Tuam, was called upon to do all the duties of that parish, after it had been united with another. One of those parishes was twenty-six miles long, the other eight miles in length. Government had, however, much to its credit, divided that union into three parishes. The emoluments derived from these unions were very great. He knew an instance where four parishes were thus united, the first of which produced 580 l. a-year; the second, 280 l.; the third, 100 l; and the fourth, 720 l.; making an annual revenue of upwards of 1,500 l. a-year; and yet the duties were inefficiently performed. The incumbent of one of these unions, in the diocese of Kilmore, held 20,000 acres of land, besides 500 acres of glebe. The conduct of the present primate had gone a great way in reforming this abuse. He disapproved of the reasons for which they were first created; but, notwithstanding the meritorious conduct of the primate or of any other prelate, he thought the House itself ought to provide by law against the recurrence of this evil. He conceived that no faculty should be granted, allowing any individual to hold two livings, while one was sufficient for his maintenance. He believed the bishops were at present doing all they could to place the established church in Ireland on a proper foundation; but he thought the government ought to put it out of their power to grant faculties for the union of parishes. That power should be confined by law to the lord-lieutenant and privy council. He was aware that if this right of granting faculties were abrogated, Dr. Ratcliffe, the present judge of the Prerogative Court, would suffer a diminution of his income, which in part arose from fees, paid on issuing those faculties. But, for the sake of that learned judge, and for the respectability of the office itself, the situ-
1344
ation ought to be placed on a better footing. At present, the salary of the judge partly consisted of fees; and he thought it indecent that any person holding such an office should be partly paid by fees and partly by a fixed salary. If the reform which he recommended in the church, took place, Dr. Ratcliffe would lose between 500 l. and 600 l. a-year; and it was proper that parliament should provide for that loss. The present primate, greatly to his praise, had written a letter to that excellent judge, regretting that by certain arrangements which had been made, the doctor was likely to be deprived of his fees, and offering to make up the loss out of his own pocket. This, however, Dr. Ratcliffe refused. He thanked the right rev. prelate for his kindness; but expressed his determination to rely on the liberality of parliament. The salary of Dr. Ratcliffe ought, in his opinion, to be a fixed one, altogether independent of fees. It was certainly unbecoming a judge to be obliged, as Dr. Ratcliffe was, to practise as a barrister, which he was allowed to do. He did not, indeed, plead in open court, but he gave his legal opinions in private. He therefore called on the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Goulburn) to place the office held by Dr. Ratcliffe in the same situation as other judicial offices were. He again adverted to a variety of unions, which he thought ought, if possible, to be put an end to. Some, he knew, could not be dissolved but by the consent or on the death of the present incumbents; and there were others granted by way of dignity, which the bishops themselves could not dissolve. He saw no reason whatever for giving to the prelates of Ireland a power which the archbishops and bishops of England did not possess. He then alluded to the opinions of the bishops of Kilmore, Meath, and some others, who had declared that they thought this power ought to be revised; and concluded by moving for leave to bring in a bill "to limit the power of holding a plurality of Benefices, and to repeal the Statutes granting to the Archbishops and Bishops the power of forming Episcopal Unions in Ireland."
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that he did not mean to oppose the motion of the right hon. baronet. Whoever had attended to what had fallen from him, whenever the church of Ireland had come under the consideration of the House, would do him the justice to say, that he had always

1345
shown a disposition, where abuses appeared to have crept in, to correct them. If cases of abuse were made out, he would not be backward in advising what course ought to be taken, for the purpose of checking them. At the present moment, he believed it was felt by the clergy themselves, that the church was in a progressive state of improvement; and he was sure that government would do all that could be done to accelerate that improvement. The only question between him and the right hon. baronet was, whether the right hon. baronet was proposing that which was best for producing improvement. He wished particularly to call the attention of the House to the evidence which had been referred to by the right hon. baronet. From this it appeared, that whatever was the conduct of the incumbents, very great efforts had been made by the bishops and by the government to improve the system. He admitted that formerly considerable abuses existed, and that many livings were given to unworthy individuals for private reasons; but the present primate was acting in a very contrary manner. He allowed no unions in his diocese. It was a great inconvenience that the same individual should be allowed to hold two livings, situated at extreme parts of the kingdom. But, the primate had put an end to this, by issuing a canon similar to that which existed in England, forbidding persons to hold livings situate at a greater distance from each other than was allowed in this country. By his arrangements the primate had curtailed the income of one of the most able and learned men at the Irish or any other bar; he meant Dr. Ratcliffe. That gentleman had consented to forego those emoluments which were incidental to his office, as judge of the Prerogative court. The whole of his emoluments amounted to about 2,000 l. a year; and that part of them which consisted of fees, amounted perhaps to 600 l. Those fees he had lost; and, though the primate -offered to make up the deficiency, Dr. Ratcliffe had declined the offer; and said that he acquiesced in the alteration, for the benefit of the church. He (Mr. Goulburn) concurred in the suggestion of the right hon. baronet, that the office held by Dr. Hatch fife should be put on the same footing as other judicial situations in Ireland; and he meant, next session, to introduce a bill for that purpose. He was at present waiting for the report of the commissioners appointed to inquire into
1346
ecclesiastical offices in Ireland; and that report would not, he believed, be completed before the end of the session, and until it was ready, he could not bring in the bill to which he had alluded. He was well pleased to find that no abuse cited by the right hon. baronet occurred later than sixteen years ago—a circumstance which showed the improved state of the Church.
Dr. Lushingtonsaid, he was glad that the right hon. baronet had introduced this question, for it was right that some arrangement should be resorted to, for the purpose of curing the defects in the Irish church establishment, which had been pointed out. He agreed in the truth of the observation, that those who held high situations in the church had made many attempts to remove existing abuses. In addition to the instances already cited by the right hon. baronet, where improper unions had been made, he could speak of one in the diocese of Down and Connor, where five or six benefices had been united for many years, and there was no resident on any of them. At length, the circumstance came to the knowledge of the bishop, who appointed a clergyman to each of them, and gave to the individuals so appointed the tithes of the different parishes. In other cases, clergymen who held pluralities, were not deprived of them, but were compelled to reside for a certain time in their parishes. The proposed bill he conceived to be extremely necessary; because though some exemplary prelates did all they could to reform the church, yet their successors might fall into error. Looking at the evidence lately laid before the House of Commons, he found, in one instance, a tract of ninety-seven square miles described as having but one resident incumbent on it. Those who complained of the increase of Roman Catholics in Ireland ought not to allow so large a district as this to be without a proper number of resident clergymen. He would not, on this subject, trust to the conscience or disposition of any bishop. He hoped such a measure would. be brought in, as would effectually prevent the enjoyment of pluralities. Non-residence he considered as the great cause of the increase of dissenters in Ireland.
Mr. Trantexpressed himself in favour of the motion; and bore evidence to the disordered state of the church establishment in Ireland.
Mr. V. Fitzgeraldconcurred in the mo-

1347
tion. He thought that there was sufficient evidence before the House to legislate on. He approved of the manner in which the right hon. baronet had brought on this motion; and was of opinion, that the holding of pluralities by faculties, was not so great a source of abuse as the episcopal unions. The bill ought rather to deal with those latter. The cases cited were sufficient to warrant the introduction of the bill. It was not too much to take away from the bishops the power of making unions without the consent of the lord-lieutenant and council of Ireland. He considered the question to be one of paramount importance; and concurred with the right hon. baronet, that nothing was more essential to the maintaining the integrity of the church of Ireland, than to see that its professors, who were so richly endowed, performed the duties of their stations. He had only further to observe, that the administration of the marquis of Wellesley had manifested the strongest disposition to carry into effect the declared sentiments of the legislature on this subject.
Mr. S. Riceconcurred in all that had been said in praise of the primate of Ireland. There was one act of his for which he was entitled to the admiration of the House and the gratitude of the country, if the fact was as he had reason to understand it was. That dignitary, in conjunction with the bishop of Limerick, had taken steps to prevent the admission of I any Orangemen into the church of Ire- land. The House would be astonished to hear that such a regulation was called for by the state of things in Ireland; but, however extraordinary they might think it, the interference of the primate of Ireland was in the highest degree worthy of his station and distinguished character.
The motion was agreed to.

STATE OF THE PRINTED REPORTS OF THE HOUSE, &c
Mr. Spring Ricerose, to move for the appointment of a select committee, on the State of the Papers printed by order of the House of Commons, from the year 1800 to the accession of his present majesty. He observed, that, since the year 1800, the parliamentary papers had not been collated or arranged. A committee had, in 1802, been appointed to inquire into the state of the papers presented to the House; and in consequence of the report of that committee the documents were selected
1348
and classed. The papers thus arranged, were now known by the title of "the Seventeen Volumes of Reports." A number of most valuable documents were at that time preserved and put in order, which were now accessible to the House and the public. From that period, to the accession of his present majesty, many important documents had been presented to parliament: but they had not yet been arranged so as to render them essentially useful to members of parliament. His object was, to select those containing the most practical information, and to have them printed as a continuation of the reports of 1802. If this subject was thought worthy of attention by the House, he would further suggest the propriety of inquiring how far the library up stairs might be extended and improved. He was aware how much the House was indebted to the late Speaker, for the foundation of that library, and to his successor, for his attention to it; but he still thought that it might be enlarged, much to the advantage of the public business and the accommodation of members. He would not detain the House further than to move, "That a select committee be appointed to inquire into the state and condition of the Index, Journals, and printed Reports and other Papers presented to this House, and that they do report the same, with their observations and opinions thereupon to the House."
Mr. Bankesrecommended the hon. member to leave out the words "Index and Journals," and confine his motion to the selection of Reports.
Sir John Newportapproved of the motion, as amended by the suggestion of the last speaker. Great care should be taken in the selection of papers; as among the valuable documents brought before the House, there was a mass of papers of minor importance, which it would be only burthensome and wasteful to collect.
Mr. Spring Riceagreed to the suggestion of the hon. member, and would confine his motion to the Reports.
Mr. Crokerapproved most fully of the motion, as he was convinced that a selection of Reports to the House would form the foundation of the most curious parliamentary history of the country. Those who reflected on the various events of the reign of George 3rd, must see how impossible it would be to arrive at any thing like accuracy in detailing them, without the assistance of the papers of the House.

1349
There was, he conceived, much propriety in the motion, and he thought the hon. gentleman deserved the thanks of the House for calling their attention to the subject. There were, in the Tower and other public places, many documents which well deserved attention. An ingenious individual had lately made researches connected with those papers, and had discovered a great deal of extraordinary matter. He thought no vote of money, in a literary point of view, could be better expended, than one which would enable the individual to whom he had alluded to give to this country a volume of those ancient records. Amongst other things he had discovered that, in ancient days, the members of the House of Commons voted by proxy. It was a practice which he did not wish to recommend; but, looking to the extreme thinness of the House at that moment, it would not perhaps be a bad plan [a laugh].
The motion was then agreed to: and it was ordered, "that it be an instruction to the Committee to consider and arrange such Reports as it may be proper to print in volumes, in addition to those which have been already so printed, and prepare an estimate of the expense of printing the same; also, to consider of providing some proper place for the safe custody of the printed books and papers, affording convenient access to the same, for the use of members of this House."

SIERRA LEONE.
Mr. Wilmot Hortonstated, that he had no objection to grant Mr. Hume the papers he required respecting the colony of Sierra Leone; but months must elapse before they could be prepared.
Mr. Humewished the hon. gentleman would fix some day, when he could explain to the House the object of his calling on them for such papers. He should consider it a dereliction of duty to postpone his motion any longer than was absolutely necessary: since he hoped to save some millions to the country for the time to come, if the course of policy which he should recommend should be followed. He should content himself at present with merely moving for the papers in the manner suggested by the hon. gentleman; but he begged to ask, whether the papers which it was said would be furnished him were now in the country, or whether it would be necessary to send out for them to Sierra Leone? The
1350
answer to that question would determine the course he should afterwards adopt.
Mr. Wilmot Hortonsaid, that some of the papers were in this country, but the majority of them were either at the colony or on their way hither. Of these a part was daily expected, orders having been sent out to the colony to forward them: and he had no doubt that they would speedily arrive. He should think tomorrow week would be a convenient night for the discussion on these papers.
Mr. Humeobserved, that he considered the motion of the greatest consequence, and should therefore agree to its postponement.

ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS.
The Lord Chancellorpresented a petition against the Catholic Claims. He observed, that it was respectfully worded, and properly drawn up. He took that opportunity of stating, that the noble lord near him (lord Holland) showed, by what he said last night, that his meaning had been misunderstood. He had not said, that the words of petitions ought never to be commented upon. On the contrary, he thought it very natural, when noble lords disapproved of the language or terms of a petition, that they should mention their disapprobation; and, if they approved of
1336
the style and object of a petition, that they should pass it by unnoticed.
The Duke of Newcastlepresented a petition against the Catholic claims, from Redford, and expressed his hope that the table of the House would soon be covered with similar petitions. It was full time for the people of this country to step forward, and declare their sentiments on this subject; and he hoped that every honest man would put his name to petitions against concessions to the Catholics, the danger of granting which was so strongly apprehended by the nation. He thought that the sense of that danger, expressed by the petitioners, was not altogether unworthy of their lordships' notice.
Lord Kinghoped that their lordships had been edified by the very tolerant petition which they had just heard read. The petitioners, in the fulness of their generosity, were willing to allow the Roman Catholics to worship God in their own way; but this, it seemed, was the utmost extent of their toleration to one-third of his majesty's subjects, whom they wished to exclude from the privileges of freemen. Their lordships had heard something last night of its having been said that the clergy were proscribed. Now, he must say, that the noble duke, who hoped that every honest man in the country would come forward and sign petitions against the Catholics, had made the most sweeping proscription he was acquainted with; for, under the stigma of dishonesty, he proscribed all the Roman Catholics of the United Kingdom, and in addition to them, all those Protestants who did not choose to sign such petitions as that which the noble duke had presented. Though the endeavours made to get up petitions of this kind were great, the opinion of the country on the question could not be disguised. The hope to raise again the cry of "No Popery," which had so much influence some years ago, was vain. That horrid cry was now dead, he trusted, for ever.

CONDUCT OF JUDGE KENRICK.
The Earl of Essexsaid, he had formerly troubled their lordships with some observations relative to the conduct of Mr. Kenrick, who was a judge. He had then asked the noble and learned lord some questions to which he had received no satisfactory answers. If he had since abstained from bringing the matter before their lordships, it was from a wish to ground on it some

1337
definite proceedings, to which, he being a judge, there were a great many technical objections, and some almost insuperable difficulties. Since he had mentioned the subject to their lordships, another affair had been made public, involving the grossest violation of justice on the part of Mr. Justice Kenrick. He knew, also, that several magistrates of Surrey had refused to set on the bench with Mr. Kenrick. Indeed, it was every magistrate's interest, it was for every magistrate's honour, that conduct which appeared so very flagrant should be reprobated. In the latter case, in which Mr. Kenrick was implicated, he could not state the particulars, because the proceedings had been compressed. In the other case, as reported in the newspapers, and as detailed in the speech of the Attorney-general, there were circumstances which excited the greatest disgust. Several magistrates of Surrey had expressed very strong opinions on the subject. After all these proceedings, he wished to know had Mr. Kenrick retired? Was he still a Welch judge? was he not still a justice of the peace for the county of Surrey? He felt strongly that there had been a flagrant violation of justice; but be saw no mode in which he could proceed against the offender. He could only, therefore, repeat his former questions, and wished particularly to ask the noble and learned lord, whether any communication had been made to him on the subject of these proceedings from the court of King's-bench? The business, he was aware, must remain in the hands of the noble and learned lord: it was for him to act in it as he thought proper. He could only say for himself, that if the noble and learned lord declared that he did not mean to remove him from the commission, if he did not think fit to displace him from the magistracy, he should not have one word further to say.
The Earl of Liverpoolreminded the noble earl, that Mr. Kenrick, as a Welch judge, was in the same situation as other judges, and could not be removed but by an address to the Crown.
The Earl of Essexsaid, that this was the difficulty which made him decline taking any proceedings; but Mr. Kenrick was not only a judge, he was also in the commission of the peace.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the noble earl and their lordships must be aware, that for any thing Mr. Kenrick had done as a judge, he could only be
1338
removed by an address to the Crown. In his conduct as a justice, it was also known to their lordships, that on representations made to the keeper of the Great Seal, he might be struck out of the commission. He must, however, state, that he had always been very cautious how he listened to representations against magistrates. There was no part of his duty which required more caution. He had in a particular case, refused to attend to numerous representations and petitions, stating, that a magistrate had applied to his own use monies which he had levied as fines on convicting persons of offences. These representations were very strong, and were supported by numerous affidavits; but it afterwards turned out, that this magistrate brought actions against all the parties who had petitioned against him, and convicted them of perjury. Had he proceeded on these affidavits, and struck this gentleman out of the commission, he should have acted with great injustice. He had seen no account of what had taken place in any court of justice, relative to Mr. Kenrick, but what he had seen in newspapers; which were not very correct authority. Mr. Kenrick moved in the court of King's-bench for a criminal information; which was refused, on the ground that he had previously defended himself by writing letters to the Stamford News. He saw nothing in this which should make any communication from the court of King's-bench to him necessary; and he had received none. As to the other case, he knew nothing of it. He had nothing before him, therefore, calling in any way for his interference with regard to Mr. Kenrick.