It so happens that I had two sets of sheep taken; there were two years elapsed between the two circumstances. The first was, that I had about thirty-eight sheep stolen, part of them out of a fold by the road side, near a footpath; the last were in the park. There were twenty sheep, I think, taken out of the fold, and there was a footpath leading from a house. There was a paper found by the side of the fold the day after the sheep were missed, and that paper evidently belonged to Franks, and that caused some little suspicion. I was in town myself; but my bailiff, in consequence, went to lord Rothes.

Your bailiff is here ?-Yes, he is; this footpath leads from the place where Mr. Franks was working with a Mr. Browne, at the top of the hill. This footpath was in a direct road from where he was working to where he lived; there it was that the letter was found. That was the only suspicion that I ever had, or that ever was entertained of Franks having taken my sheep. Immediately after that, the man who had stolen the sheep was taken up, tried, and convicted.

Did you ever at any other time lose any sheep in which Franks ever incurred any suspicion at all?-About two years afterwards, I had, in another part of the farm, one sheep killed, and I believe taken away; another was wounded; but as to that, there was not the slightest ground of suspicion that I ever heard of against Franks.

Did you, at any time in August, 1824, receive a letter from Mr. Kenrick?-I did. I have got the letter here; but it bears no date except that of Sunday morning.

Is that in Mr. Kenrick's hand-writing ?I have not the least reason to doubt it; and I received it by his servant from him.

[The Letter was read as follows:] "My dear Sir;-I returned home last night, and found the fair copy I send herewith, of the draft affidavit, which I hastily put together in the two days I could remain in the country, before I was obliged to set out on the circuit, after I was made acquainted with the attack made on me in the Morning Chronicle.

"My solicitor strongly recommends to me to apply to the different parties whose names are mentioned, to make affidavit of such facts as are stated in relation to them; and shall be therefore obliged by your perusing the second, third, fourth, and fifth sheets of this draft for me, if you will make an affidavit in confirmation of what is there stated.

"I have my doubts of the propriety of stating the circumstance about your two sheep, in pages four and five, and at all events it will not be necessary, if I should be advised or determine to retain that part, for you to enter upon it in your affidavit. I will call on you to-morrow, if you wish it.

"Pray return me the draft affidavit by the bearer, after you have read the pages mentioned, and the rest, if you please. I have VOL. XIV.

Was that letter accompanied by an affidavit? -It was.

Did you see Mr. Kenrick in consequence of that letter?-I did not, but I wrote him an answer to that letter.

Did you see Mr. Kenrick upon the subject of that affidavit ?-I cannot say whether I did or not, it is so long ago; I very likely did, but I wrote him an answer to the letter decidedly at the time.

Did you keep a copy of the answer you sent ?—No, I did not; I recollect perfectly well what I wrote, and I have no doubt Mr. Kenrick has got the answer.

I

Did you return the affidavit to Mr. Kenrick? I did, with a letter.

Was it returned altered in any respect?— think it very likely that I might have written my opinion upon parts of it; I recollect perfectly well having written a letter, or at least

sent an answer.

What was that answer?—I said in that answer, that I did not think that I could make any affidavit to the facts he had alluded to, for that really the circumstances were all out of my recollection, with the exception of my having granted a search warrant; but with respect to the affair of Franks, I told him by all means not to state that, as there was not the slightest proof of Franks' having been guilty of that which he supposed he was. There is one thing I ought to explain, both for Mr. Kenrick's sake and my own. Till I read the letter this very morning, so little notion had I of Franks having any thing to do with the second sheep (and I only slightly suspected him of stealing the first), that I thought Mr. Kenrick alluded to the first; and I stated, therefore, that there was no evidence against him, but the piece of paper having been found, and therefore I said he ought not to put it in, because the real culprit had been taken up and convicted.

Cross-examined by Mr. Gurney.-Is not the constable who acted upon that occasion dead?—I never heard of any constable acting upon the occasion.

A man of the name of Rose?-Rose is dead; but whether he was constable or not, I really

do not know.”

circumstance of a bloody knife as well as a Do you remember whether there was not a piece of paper?-I never heard of a bloody knife, till either Mr. Kenrick or Mr. Wimburn mentioned it. I never heard of a bloody knife at the time; there was a space of two years between the time of my sheep having been stolen, and the one sheep having been killed; therefore the bloody knife could not be in the fold where the sheep were taken; and I am certain I never heard of a bloody knife at the

time.

Examined by Mr. Denman,-Were any sheep 2 L

killed on the occasion of the first sheep stealing, when the paper was found?-No, there

were not.

How many years ago was this affair of the sheep?-I should think somewhere about six or seven. I really cannot remember the year. You have been a magistrate a good many years for the county of Surrey?—Yes, a great many years.

And residing in the neighbourhood of Franks? -Yes.

Was Franks ever brought before you, as a magistrate?-Never; I never heard his name mentioned before me as a magistrate.

[The Witness was directed to withdraw.] Edward Arnold was called in, and examined by Mr. Denman, as follows:

Are you Mr. Peters's bailiff?—I am. Do you know any thing of a charge against Franks's daughter, some years ago?—No, nothing.

Do you know of a suspicion that fell upon Franks with respect to stealing some of Mr. Peters's sheep?-When Mr. Peters's sheep were stolen, or after they were stolen, there was a paper found in the field; I took the paper to lord Rothes, and he said he could see nothing to justify him in granting a warrant to apprehend Franks. Mr. Kenrick said, that he thought there was a suspicion to grant a warrant against Franks; lord Rothes afterwards said, that he could see nothing to justify him to grant a warrant against Franks, for any other person might be going up the field, and taking their handkerchief out of their pocket, they might drop a paper out, and it might be carried there by the wind.

Were you the witness that went before lord Rothes, with respect to that business ?-Yes, I was.

Was there any other circumstance to charge Franks, except the finding a piece of paper near the fold where the sheep were taken from? -No, nothing that I heard of.

Were any of those sheep killed?—There were none killed at the time those were taken. Was there a bloody knife found ?—Not that I know of.

Was there any other person afterwards tried and convicted of stealing those sheep?-Yes, a person of the name of Bignold.

Did you attend his trial?-I did; he was tried, I believe, before lord Ellenborough, at Lewes. He was found guilty, and afterwards transported for the said offence.

Did you ever hear of any other circumstance that fixed Franks with any suspicion of stealing any sheep of Mr. Peters's?-Not to my knowledge.

How long have you lived near Franks?— Ever since 1811, I have lived little better than a mile from him.

What character has Franks borne during all that time, as an honest and industrious man? -I know nothing in respect to Franks's character; for at the time our sheep were stolen,

those sheep that were stolen out of the turnips, when the paper was found, I scarcely knew there was such a man except by name.

Since that time, have you ever had dealings with Franks?-Yes; I think the sheep were stolen in April, in the November following I sold him a sow.

[The Witness was directed to withdraw.]
John Franks was called in, and examined
by Mr. Denman, as follows:

What is your name?—John Franks.
Where do you live?-At Alverston, near
Stratford-on-Avon.

In whose service?-Lieut.-general Jenkinson's.

In what capacity?-As gardener; I have the care of all out of the house. Did you live some years at Betchworth, in Surrey?—Yes.

You have a freehold there ?—I have.

Do you recollect your daughter being taken before Mr. Peters, the magistrate, on a charge of stealing some articles at Mr. Kenrick's ?— Yes, very well.

Did you attend before the magistrate at the same time?-I did.

Was any charge made against you, of being an abettor in that theft?—I do not know that there was any charge made against me, only. Mr. Kenrick rose up in a passion, and told me, if he could get any hold of me, he would make a public example of me.

Were the articles missing found any where in your house?—They were.

In what part of the house ?-In a little small box belonging to the girl herself.

How old was the girl at the time?—Nearly about ten years of age; I do not know to a month or two.

What were the articles that were found in the box?-I cannot say exactly, for I never saw them till I saw them in the room; but they were slips of silk, or something of that kind, and a bit of lace, and a pair of small scissors.

Were those things found in your bed-room? They were beside the girl's bed; she sleeps in the same room.

Were they concealed any where?—No; only in a little deal box, where she kept a doll and other things; it was a box given her by her godfather.

The charge was dismissed, it was not prosecuted?-It was not.

Out of compassion, probably, to the youth of the child?-Yes, it was.

Did Mr. Peters say any thing to you on dismissing the charge ?-Not that I recollect, he did not. Mr. Adams called to me, that was Mr. Kenrick's butler.

Was that before the magistrate?—It was just withoutside of the door in the passage; but he went in to the gentlemen, and sent the constable out after me to call me back.

You were sent to prison on a charge of stealing a piece of wood?—I was.

That was in the summer of 1824?—It was.

You were in prison two months on that charge?-Exactly.

Did you give your wife any authority to intercede with Mr. Kenrick to show you any lenity on that occasion?-Not at all; I never spoke to her any thing on the subject: the last thing I spoke to her when I went out of the house was, to be sure that the children did not make use of any ill language to any of Mr. Kenrick's people, though I was sent away.

Did you ever express any gratitude to Mr. Kenrick, or his bailiff, or any of his people, for his conduct to you in the course of that prosecution?-Not at all.

Is your wife here?—I do not know that she is, unless she has come in by the coach since I came down here.

[The Witness was directed to withdraw.] The Counsel for Mr. Kenrick being asked what course they wished to pursue, Mr. Gurney stated, that he proposed to call a witness to de

liver in certain documents.

Charles John Lawson, esq. was called in, and examined by Mr. Gurney, as follows. What is your name?-Charles John Lawson. You are clerk of the peace for the county of Surrey?—I am.

Are you possessed of the depositions taken by Mr. Burges, the magistrate who committed Franks?-I am.

Will you produce them? [The Witness produced the same, and they were read as follow :]

"The King against John Franks. The Information of James Scragg, of Betchworth, in the county of Surrey, labourer, and James Beal, of Betchworth aforesaid, yeoman, taken on oath before me, Ynyr Burges, esq. one of his Majesty's Justices of the Peace, acting in and for the said county of Surrey, this 14th of May, 1824.

"James Scragg-Says: I am a labouring man, and work for William Kenrick, esq. in Betchworth. About five weeks or a month ago, I was directed to clean out a ditch on Mr. Kenrick's land, and to take an elm slab from the saw-pit to stand upon in the ditch, which I did. When I had cleaned out the ditch, I drew the plank into a small meadow belonging to Mr. Kenrick, and left it there; and I cannot say that I have seen the slab since, till yesterday, when I saw it in the garden, in the occupation of John Franks, now in custody. The slab was wet and dirty when I had done with using it, which was the reason I did not take it back to the saw-pit; and I did not do so afterwards, because I had forgotten it. The elm slab now produced is the same slab which I used, and is the property of Mr. Kenrick. The mark of

"JAMES SCRAGG."

cleaning out a ditch on Mr. Kenrick's land. This was about five weeks ago; and about a week ago I missed the slab, which had been used by Scragg, which had not been returned to the saw-pit. In the morning of yesterday, the 13th May instant, I saw an elm slab standing against a new building, in the garden of John Franks, in Betchworth, and near to his dwelling-house, and about one hundred yards from Mr. Kenrick's saw-pit. Having a suspicion that the slab I then saw was the property of Mr. Kenrick, I went to-day into the garden where the slab was still standing, and examined it, and found that it was the elm slab which had been used by the last witness, Scragg, and that it was the property of Mr. Kenrick; I then took the slab away, and took it to the timber yard, belonging to Mr. Kenrick, it had been sawed off. The pieces now proand fitted it to the piece of timber from which duced are the two pieces of timber, that which I took from Franks's garden, and that I brought from the timber-yard, and which fit together. I am certain the piece of timber or slab I found in Franks's garden, is the property of William Kenrick, esq. and is of the value of one shilling. JAMES BEAL."

"John Franks, in his defence, says:-The piece of timber produced, is the piece which I set up upon my premises, but I do not know where it came from; I first saw it there about a fortnight ago. It was lying down, and I set it up. I made no inquiry about it, as to where it came from."

"Surrey.

The Examination of John Franks, of Betchworth, in the county of Surrey, labourer, taken before me Ynyr Burges, esq. one of his Majesty's Justices of the Peace for the county of Surrey, this 14th day of May, 1824. "This Examinant being charged before me the said Justice, on the oaths of James Scragg and James Beal, with having, on the 14th day of May, 1824, at the parish of Betchworth, in the county of Surrey, feloniously stolen and carried away one piece of elm timber of the value of one shilling, the property of William Kenrick, esq., on his examination now taken before me, saith, That he is not guilty of the offence aforesaid, though the piece of timber was on his (the Examinant's) premises; but how it came there, be this Examinant doth not know. "JOHN FRANKS."

During Franks's imprisonment for trial, did you receive a letter from Mr. Kenrick, respecting the stopping of the prosecution?—I did.

Will you produce the letter. [The Witness produced the same, and it was read as follows:]

establishment. He thought the House was not in a condition to go into a committee, until the chancellor of the Exchequer had stated the amount of the resources of the country, and what taxes he meant to reduce; for it was not possible for the country to sustain the same load of taxation in a metallic currency, as it had done in a paper one. He should have been very glad if the right hon. gentleman had brought forward the whole of his financial statement at once. He trusted the House would not suffer itself to be led away any longer by flattering and delusive statements, which ultimately turned out to be nothing but mere words. Ministers had told us, in his majesty's Speech, that professions of friendship and amity had been received from all foreign courts. If this was the fact, surely, especially when we took into consideration our insulated situation, there was no need for our keeping up, at such an enormous expense, such large military and naval establishments. Last year we had 29,000 seamen; this year it was proposed to add another thousand; whereas, the number appointed by the finance committee as a sufficient peace-establishment, was only 19,000. If we went on in this way, it was quite impossible that our finances could ever recover, or that we could ever be prepared to carry on an effective war. No naval establishment in the world amounted to one-half of our What was the navy of the United States, from which we were constantly told we had so much to fear? Why, the number of line-of-battle ships in the American navy was only seven, whereas the number of our ships of war was 509. Surely, then, we ought to pause before we added to our expenditure in this department. For his part, he would not consent to vote a single man or a single pound until the chancellor of the Exchequer had made a statement of the revenue and the expenditure. It should be recollected that, on a former occasion, ministers, after stating that it was quite impossible for them to make any reduction in their military establishment, had, of their own accord, when they found the revenue insufficient for the support of it, made a reduction in it, of from ten to twelve thousand men. Our army might, without any danger to the country, be decreased one-third, and then we might well afford to keep up a respectable naval establishment. He would move, by way

own.

of amendment, "That it is desirable, be fore the House should vote any part of the naval and military establishments for the year, that the extent of those estab lishments, and the estimates of them, should be laid before the House, par ticularly as the naval estimates for this year exceed in amount those of the last year."

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, the only mode the House had to deter mine why it was that the estimates of the present year exceeded those of the last, was by going into a committee of supply, in which his hon. friend (sir G. Clerk) would explain them, item by tem. AÍthough, for the last few years, he had felt it due to the public convenience to give as early an explanation as he could of the state of the finances of the country, yet he had never supposed the House would have been precluded from pursuing the usual course of going into a committee of supply for the purpose of inquiring whe ther the amount proposed ought to be voted. If the House were to abstain from investigating the estimates, item by item, until he had made his general statement of the finances of the country, it would be imposing on him a task which he should be unable to perform; for he must, in that case, take upon himself to explain the duties of his hon. friend near him, and of those other hon. friends who were engaged in the various public departments. It would be the most inconvenient course possible, and, in fact, was calculated to throw obstacles in the way of the views of the hon. member himself. If when the different items were explained to the committee by the head of the department to which they belonged, they were not explained in a satisfactory manner, the committee could reject them. The usual practice appeared to him to be at once the most convenient and the most salutary; and he therefore could not acquiesce in any proposal for departing from it.

Colonel Davies contended, that it was the duty of the House to make the government reduce its establishments, in order to secure a reduction of taxation. It was possible, that when these estimates were produced, he should give them his support, for they related to a branch of the public service towards which he, in common with every man, was disposed to act liberally. He was anxious to support the navy upon every occasion, as it was