Star. — London, England, 1825-06-29 00:00:00

7 S. .6 • I 1( E - 't .1 • v 1)1 • \ % reeled. If there was no **Oen. be should frame such a clause, and propose It at another stage el the measure. The earl of LIVERPO.OL staled, that the object of the Bill. was clearly the repeal of the .>d yf the Act only. The only objection which he had to the uction of suelve clause that which had been mentioned, wab in t in it might form an inconvenient precedent fer other Bills hereafter. The LORD CHANCIMLOR admittel that it was better not to load the Bill with unnecessary enntstientb, but the Insertion of a few words might answer the objet which he bad in view. In his opinion there was hardly one thing forbidden by the eth of Oeorge I. which was not forbidden by the Common Law. The Earl of LAUORRDALK wished that a distinct clause should be inserted for the information of the unwary. The blarqiiis of LANSDOWN concurred with the Noble Fail opposite in the expediency of charters. If only the privilege of suing and being sued by a particular of were granted, it would be creating qualified monopolies ; and there were cases in which he should not with to see the privilege exerted on the part of the Crown, without a special enquiry and interference on that of Parliament. The Earl of LTV EBPOOL said, that the present Bill was to empower the' Crown to grant qualified Charters: but it must not be forgotten that the Crown possessed that of granting them with out any limitation& The latter, however, would he lest likely to b exercised when once the faculty of limiting Chatters was -be stow e.l. The Noble Earl concluded by giving notice, that on Fri day next he should call the attention of their Lotd.hips to the stare of the jurisdiction of their Lordship' House, as to Appeals. The Lill was then read a second time. • The Irish F.undling, and the East India Judges Salaries Bills went respectively through Committees. and were reported.— Adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS. On the motion of Dr. PH ILLI 111 0R E, the House resolved itself lute a Committee ea the Minn Divorce Bill. Counsel were cslled is and wkne►scs examined. The House resumed, and the Report was ordered to be brought up. DISCCAN PRIZE MONEY. Mr. HUME presented a Petition from Lieut.-Colonel Fittsimon, complaining of unnecessary delay in the disuibution of the Deccan Prize Money. The Petitioner complained of en unwillingness having been manilested by those to whom the distribution alit was entrusted to receive full information from those who bad claims upon it. The Petitioner further prayed, that inquiry might be instituted by that Hon. House, in order that there might be a satisfactory and speedy adjustment of the cases of the several claimants. ' The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that the property to which the Petition referred did not come under the character of drat property specified in any of the Prize Acts. It came under the denomina tion of booty. The Prize Money was to be distributed for the benefit of the captors of that booty; but in the distribution of it a variety of interests %vete to be at tended to. Independeitt of the claims of the East India Company. it was necessary to ascertain the extent of the property; and secondly, the number of claimantsl upon it. The D.,ke of Wellington and Mr. Arbuthnot bad been appointed trustees to adjust those claims, and when he named those two persons, be was satisfied that the interests of the army would not suffer any neglect in the adjustment of the case. They bestowed great la bour upon it, free from all motives of personal benefit or aggran disement whatever. Most of the documents were actually drawn up in the hand-writing of the Duke of Wellington. They spared no pains to bring the matter to a speedy adjustment; they bad ascer tained the amount of the property, and it only remained for them nest codetermine the event of the claims. It was not until the lot of June in the present year that a scheme of distribution pointing out the individual claims bad been submitted to them. The House would therefore feel that there was no unnecessary delay on the part of the Trustees in chilli:desire to bring the business to an im mediate and satisfactory completion. Dr. LUSHINGTON observed,' that notwithstanding the praise - bestowed upon the conduct of the-Tru•stefs, it was not a little remarkable that the army did notat All concur in this commendation of their conduct ; on the contrary, they eipressed their marked dissatisfac tion at it. Their conduct he (Dr. Lusbington) would not hesitate to assert, was unwarrantable, and without all precedent. it was the duty of Trustees to profect the prriperty and interests of those whose property was entiusted to their charge. It was also customary for them to receive all communications, and to receive information in the most uncircumscribed *manner from persons whose interest it was then their duty to protect ; but these Trustees refused to hold that communication. The Right Hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Ex chequer) had said that the Duke of Wellington had drawn up the documents connected with this transac tion in his own band• writing. He (Dr. Lushington) could scarcely credit the assertion, for it was with astonishment that he saw a letter of such unparalleled insolence addressed to Sir T. Hyslop, the Commander in Chief in India, calling upon him to give information in the way prescribed in the letter. It prohibited him from corresponding with the Trustees, either lax his agent or professional advisers ; but said, forsooth, that it would 'be more decorous and respectful in him to communicate with the Trustees in person, than through the medium of an agent. Tie would be glad to know what right the Trustees had to put such a restriction upon him? He (Dr. Luslaingten) had also been in• formed that Mr. Arbuthnot—he regretted not to see the Right Hen. Gentleman in his place—had intended to appoint his son agent to the Trustees, who was DWI however, 2 1 Years of age; and it was the opinion of the Law °Seers ' moreover, that uo person could be nominated as agent without the consent of the army. He had reason to believe that that agency would have been winch some thousands bf pounds. He hoped the House would take the conduct of the Trustees into their serious consideration. It was alike contrary to precedent and revolting to justice. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER ex plained. He regretted that indisposition prevented the trestnce of his Right Honourable Friend (Mr. Arbuthnot). His son bad not been appointed as agent ; but he would say that, ha file opinion, the trOitees bad a right, if they pleased, to nominate 'their own agent. ' The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Manned the °plane ef the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and bore testimony to doe kindles exertions of the Duke of Wellinguns and Mr. Arbuthnit. After a few words from Dr. Limnos:op and DU thou, the Petition was ordered to lie On the table. SPANISH CLAIMS. Lord J. RUSSELL was desirous of knowing from the Right Honourable Gentleman the Secretary for Foreign Alfairs, what was the atnount of the claims of this country on Spain, laid before the Cormission appointed to adjust those claims, and what was the amount allowed by the Consmisdasers appointed to act en behalf of Spain? Mr. "Secretary CANNING replied, that he had re ceived*no information on the subject. Without pledging irecise accuracy, he would gate that the II 'out of it ; as, in consequence of a negociation on the part of Spain, toiatisfy the British claimants, a reprisal was threatened to be made on the Spanish vessels for the satisfaction of their claims. By this convention, Commissioners were appointed to vatic those claims on the pan of England and of Spain. From the present mate of the treasury of Spain, Pate llar difficulties, be apprehended, would be thrown in the way of the adjustment of these claims. He was satisfied that nothing would be wanting on the part of our Commissioners, to bring them to a speedy termination, that could be effected either by urgency or by reasonable compromise. blr. HUME presented a Petition front Sheffield, against the Combination Laws. . : lls _ himself to precise' accuracy, he would state that the claims presented by this country an Spain, amounted t o about two millions. Every possible impediment we. placed in the way of these claims, in a manner certainly not very becoming. - . Th e antennt of the claims admitted b y the Cons- s t I missioners en the portal irks he was not prepared to state, but DO es:anima Wares wired on the part of our Cenunlssioners to hring the buiMess to a speedy and satisfactory settlement ; but be feared that that - whitlows most essential, :hugely, money, was not to be bad. Lord J. RUSSELL, in a very low_ tone of mice, said, he did not Mob the expianatien of the Right Honourable Gentleman satisfactory. : Mr. Sectetary CANNING replied , th at there were 1 • t . i . ~ . - . II peculiar chlficulties in the . way of the adjustment of =Spanish claims. A tier clation for the indemni• c on of British creditors on Span, had terminated r. cal . e* t i r e lustment of these claims ; a threat of t . ... u s ; but thou _ls this threat was not re eimbed to, it leftomething - bebiad to quicken the satis- itiliey completion of cite-demand. A - convention grew ..._ .. MR. ICZNRICK. Mr. TItEMAYNE presented a Petition from Mr. Kenrick, praying for a postponement of the case of Franks, the witnesses in which case had been ordered to attend the house that night, as the Petitioner had not had time either to consult with Counsel, or to prepare testimony to meet and mantes-act the charge to be preferred agalust him. Mr. D EN M AN said, that the Petition which had been presented would not alter the course which he had pointed out to the House to adopt respecting the case of A. Ft ankh However, as it was not likely the House would sit to-morrow, and as Mr. Kenrick complained of not having had an opportunity of preparing wit nesses to meet the charge, and of consulting Counsel, he would glad, ctinsent to let the business lie over until Thursday. The witnesses on the part of the charge he intended to prefer, were ready ; if it were thought pro per, he would propose that they be called in now, and examined. In the part he would act, he wished to be regulated by the feeling of the Howe. Every reason able indulgence ought to be shewn to Mr. Kenrick.— But when he cons:tiered tl.e evidence which had been heard on the cha•ge of Canfor, he must repeat his con viction of Mr. Kenrick's improper conduct. The note sent to Beale was a very odd one, calling for the fleece, in the nature of a command, on a charge of fe- 1 lony, and that o as singular, to say the least. Such a note was a strong attack upon Mr. Beale ; but Mr. Ken tick did not take a deposition, neither did he issue a search warrant; but he said a constable might go with him to demand the fleece, in order to be producestbefore the Magistrate. When the note was received, Beale laughed at it, and without once :hewing that he had a ram so like the other as that a mistake might have been made. But here the Magistrate had only the statement of Beale, and what was next done? Canfor did not obtain the teem neither was be allowed to pro secute the offender; and, therefore, Canfor was placed in a• worse situation than he ought to have been.— Canfor went to another Magistrate, who refused to act; and again he went to Mr. Kenrick, oho again refused to act as a Magistrate ought to have done. Magistrates should follow property wherever it could be found ; and of course, a search warrant was not to be granted as a matter of favour. Mr. Kenrick should have taken the evidence upon oath, as leading to the recovery of the lost property of Canfor. A re f fence was said to have taken place, as to whether Beale or Canfor was mistaken as to the fleece ; but this was not a matter of difference as to a civil right, but as to the fair suspicion of a felony having been committed or not by Beale, Mr. Kenrick thought he was doing his duty by allowing a reference; but Mr. Kenrick forgot that another question remained be hind, on which the justice of the country mainly de pended. The referees then met, and allowed the fleece to Carafes:: Having in this way obtained it, could anything be mote natural than that Canfor should say to Mr. Kenrick, I am not wrong here--I hayt the fl:ece, and I cannot have acted wrongly?— Canfor produced the notes of the referees, giving the fleece to him, while Mr. Kenricit added, in his defence, that he did not believe the fleece to be the property of Mr. Canfor. How Mr. Kenrick could-come to such a conclusion, he (Mr. Denman) could not ascertain.— 'One thing, however, was certain, that Mr. Kenrick must have been very confused upon the subject. Ano ther thing as clear was, that Mr. Keorick had been guilty of a dereliction of his duty, although from what causes, he (Mr. Denman) would not say ; but if the object of Mr. Kenrick was to protect Mr. Beale, he took a very erroneus method cf doing so. He (Mr. Denman) wished the mildest course to be pursued in this case, and he was quite sure that any other Magis trate having such a charge made against a respectable neighbour, would have requested his neighbour to come forward and clear himself—( Heat, bear).-.. It appeared to him that Mr. Kenrick neglected what he owed to the public, by the conduct which he pursued on that occasion. He did not think that Magistrates should act in haste or irritation, and he thought Mr. Kenrick reprehensible for not granting the search war rant, and for dismissing the case out of his hands alto gether. So much for the first part of the case; but look at the sequel. Here was a man coming to look for redress treated with outrage and made a prisoner I If such conduct was . pursued by Magistrates in conse quence of imagined offence or wounded dignity, they should be taught a different lesson. He imputed no corruption to Mr.Kenrick, but he imputed to him haste, irtitation, and an arbitrary feeling unsuited to the cha racter of a Magistrate.. Perhaps Cantor was importu-, nate, but why nbt produce Adams, the butler of Mr. Kenrick, and Mr. Beale, and the two at bitrators, to prove it ? The constable-butler selected to bssau.. Canfor was not called ; and so far Mr. Kent ick had proved his own conviction. He (Me. Denman) heard it said there could be no felony because the sheep were found upon the common. He thought the light Hon. Secretary would not adopt that argument, for felony consisted in taking the property of another man, not from hii pre mises but from the high road. Well, then, the butler of Mr. Kenrick was made a constable; he searched Mr. Cantor under no pretence--the pretence was a mock ery; but Mr. Kenrick said, " because you got the fleece in consequence of an arbitration, you shall still deliver it up to me, because I wish to put it into the hands of the constable; in case a charge should be -übstantiatee But Mr. Kenrick refused to hear the charge; be dis missed it in point of fact; and what could he mean by, saying he wanted to keep the fleece as eviJence for the purpose of a charge? Mr. Kentick could only so want it in his character as Magistrate, whereas as Magistrate he had dismissed the charge ! Here was a Alagistrate -making his butler a special constable to outrage a suitor for justice. Now, was that, he asked, to be tolerated ? He thought that this case was one of very serious im portance, and if otherwise considered by the Magistracy of this country, the matter was one of the greatest it*. portance. He knew it was said that Mr. Keurick had paid a compensation for this injury to Canfor. True, he had ; but what answer was that to the House of Commons? Certainly none. The ease was admitted to be against him by the Counsel of Mr. Kenrick, but could it, therefore, be said that die House of Commons should no t interfere,? if the House did not interfere, who would be able to say that a person after such a conviction was, fit to be continued as a Magistrate? Was such a per son to be continued in a high office-4o administer the 1aw...t0 be allowed for ever to *pipit* injustitter oppression ? Suppose the eaMason case of a servant sent to prison for stealing my plate, and sent to prison for twelve meonths.Suppose,at the aspiration of that time, he came again to ask to fill a similar situation is he_held before, because of such , punishment, would the House say, because the servant suffered the penalty of the law, that he should, therefore, be placed in his old si-1 tostion ? For himself, he thought that the Judges and the Magistrates were too much plowed beyond the reach of reap's sibility. He thought that no men, when they discharged their duty, were More entitled to reverence and attachment I but wises they acted otherwise, the same feeling should not be entertained is their favour. He considered that the Government should have in terfered the moment they taw the Andy* hi the Newspaper& If it were approved of by the House, and if Mr. Kenrick the necessary for his due conskkratioo, he would consent to the bearing the evidence on the part of the prosecution of the charges now, and of permitting the evidence on the part of the dn• fence to lie over to the nett Session. The Honourable Member concluded by moving a set of Rep:dation*, to the effect that Mr. Kenrick !Detracted Improperly—that he bad prevented a legalbin quiry—and that Mr. Kenrick's conduct, in Imprisoning MG Cam. tor, was a gross abuse of his authority as a afasturate. Mr. Secretary PEEL said that he would be the lea man to attribute any improper motive to the Honour. able and kartied Gentleman in bringing forward this charge. The general manliness of his character was a guarantee for his impartiality. For his own part, he hal no peri'nal acquaintance-with- Mr. Kentick, and all he wished was, that strict justice should be done to Mr. Kentielt-Pand- the conatee.,-The que,tiom.forahe Committee to decide was upon the Petiti.an of Canfor, and the Report which they were bound to make upon the evidence. in support of it. The case of Franks should not be mixed up with the question.- He was sure that no sympahy upon the part of Magistrates would induce them to forget their duty in coming to a deci sion; nor that personal feeling, on other subjects, would be indulged in against Mr. Kenrick. The sub ject was properly and naturally divided into two parts, and he would follow them as they had been so stated. He did net mean to shew that Mr. Kenrick had all through the case acted with propriety—that would not be necessary; but he meant to shew that the conduct of Mr. Kenrick did not call for the interference of the House. He acquitted him of all corruption, and he believed him to be actuated by the best possible feel ings. Mr. Beale, against whom the charge was made, was known to be a very respectable man, _according to the testimony of the Noble Lord opposite. However,' Mr. Canfor had lost some sheep, which sheep found their way to Westwood Common, near the farm of Beale, and how, therefore,, could it be argued that Beale had feloniously become possessed of these sheep, merely because they had strayed towards his farm ? It was not explained to Mr. Kenrick that Canfor . claimed the ram as his property. Mr. Kenrick thought it more a matter of civil charge than of: criminal proceeding ; and knowing the character of Beale, he did not grant a search warrant against a person whom he knew to be a respectable man. The Right Hon. Member here proceeded to read several of the answers of Cantor, as to whether he preferred a claim to the fleece of the ram, which, upon being hard pressed, he answered in the negative. But to other questions of the same nature he' answered differently, atd he admitted that Beale pre. ferred a claim to the ownership of the fleece. Under such circumstances, then, he asked if Mr. Kenrick had acted right? and he (Mr. Peel) would say, that he had most properly conducted himself. Magistrates were not lightly to violate the rights and liberties of the sub ject, and in this case, if there were anything culpable, it was the non-Interference of Mr. Kenrick. He ad mitted also with the Honourable and Learned Gentle. man, that Also, Magistracy should be above all feelings' of anger or irritation in the dis:harge of their public duty, but few men could bear to be thwarted, insulted, and provoked, merely because they did not grant any request which they might believe to be unnecessarily or impertinently made to them. Corruption on the part of Mr. Kenrick was altogether out of the question, and taking the evidence of Cantor as the basis of any other charge against Mr. Kenrick, what did it in reality amount to? There was a case of disputed Eoperty. The accuser was unknown to Mr. Kenrick. The very christian name of Beale was also unknown to him, and even for a trifle of such a nature, the Committee would be able to see that Mr. Kenrick could have no mo tive for denying that justice to Canfor, to which he thought himself, however erroneously, entitled.—.. , Mr. Kenrick thought the matter one of a civil nature-a., a mere trifle as to property ; and what Magistrate - se. thinking, but would have acted as Mr. Kenrick did, and have referred the matter to the arbitration of the friends of the disputants ? The case having arrived at that stage, the parties agreed to the award of the referees—but some subsequent damage was admitted , ' by Mr. Kenrick, and his Counsel, with the consent of Mr. Canfor's Counsel, had agreed to a compromise, and there the matter should have ended. But Canfor was dissatisfied with the comptomise, because of its, small amount. Was Mr. Kenrick to blame for that? Mr. Kenrick, in his affidavit, denied any previous knowledge of the compromise, yet, after it was made, be yielded as became him to yield. Ought this House then to be called on to intelfere? He was sure the Committee would decide otherwise. He did not give Cantor the credit which many Members had done fair the purity of his motives in bringing the case before the House. If he was moved by a love of impartial justice, why dal he allow it to sleep for six mqnths, and wait till the dose of the Session ? The real slues. Lion was, whether a case was made out to support the Learned Gentleman's proposition ? He again repeated —No. The House should be cautious in deliberating on charges against Magistrates. A case of injustice should be clestly made out before the Crown was called on to interfere.. The proposition of the Learned Gen tleman touched upon extra-judicial proceedings, and contained a censute against the Magistrate. It was in. consistent to move such a censure, without asking the Crown to dismiss Mr. Kenrick. This was far too se vere a procedure. As no corrupt motives could be ins. puted to Mr. Kenrick, he should feel it his duty to move the following resolution : That the Committee having heard the evidence In support of the allegations contained In the Petition of Martin Money Canfor, and having heard Calmar' in behalf of Mr. Kenrick, they do nor racy further. proceedings wish reference to the judicial character of think it necessary to recommend to the House the institution of Mr. Kenrick (clear). Mr. TIERNEY said that he had come to an entirely different conclusion on the case fiom that of the Right Hun. Gentlemen. greatly disapproved of Mr. K:s conduct, and the H ate would sink in public estima tion if it did not express its sense of the outrageousness of that conduct, and intetf re to protect the administra tion of justice. The question was not alst ut any recom. pence to Canfor, but whether Mr. Kenrick should in jure him with impunsty ? (hear, hear). Any Magistrate ho had acted as Mr. Kentick had done, ought not to ; -- - . • be entrusted with a large d'.--etiottary power. T'le case had been divided into two parts. The fitateapplied to the refusal of a search warrant, the f ecomi to the false imprisonment of Cantor. He did not mean to im- ' pute corrupt *motives to Mr. Kenrick, nor did he think it necessary to do so to justify the interference of the House. His want of temper, or of capacity, were yea. sous quite sufficient, and therefore the amettdment was not one which he could agree to. He could not under stand why the evidence of Canfor had not been re ceived by Mr. Kenrick, nor could he understand why Mr. Kenrick had not, at all events,-enquired into the nature of the case. Ili had heard a very high character of Mr:Beale which he was not disposed to controvert, but he must say, that his conduct was at least very estrabr, dinary. He lost a ram with a mark on the rump, and in searching for it, he finds one with a mark on the side, which he takes instead of his own—(Larghter).-Catl for claims this ram from Beale, and says, that if he sees the fleece he can identify it. What says Beale? Why-that that is the very reason he will not shew him the fleeces If Canfor upon this got angry, was it to be wondered at? Mr. Kenrick, he contended, had acted with the grossest impropriety. By a subsequent reference,' Mr: Beale was obliged to restore the sheep, and in order to thew Mr. Kenrick that rte was justified in call'ng for the warrant, he wanted to she him the fleece, upon which Mr. Kenrick flies in a passion, swears in his butler as a special constable, and gives Canfor into custody. Canfor subsequently brOught his action, and Mr. Ken rick found it necessary to acknowledge his guilt by compromising the action. Now he (Mr. Tierney) was lof opinion that Cantor's motives in presentiug that Petition had nothing to do with the question,—the House bad only to consider of the propriety or impropriety of Mr. Kenriek's conduct, and to proceed accordingly. It was altogether pregnant with suspicion, and calculated to excite deep feelings ui disgust and indignation. Mr. Secretary CANNING agreed with the Right Honourable Gentleman opposite (Mr. Tierney). that it was the bounden duty of Parliament to interfere where a case of corruption or partiality was substantiated against a Judge, and to address the Crown fur his re' moral ; but he did not feel that the gravity of the charge against Mr. Kenrick called for the exercise of this extreme power of Parliament. Nothing could'be more unfair than the argument of the Honourable and Learned Member (Mr. Denman), that if the House ' did not pass a vote of censure on the conduct of Mr. Kenrick, it must in effect applaud and approve of every part of it. If the House were not prepared to adopt the extreme course of addressing the Crown for the removal of Mr. Kenrick, the intermediate course of branding him with imputations would have no other effect than that of rendering him utterly powerless and inefficient in his high office. By adopting such -a course, the House would not act up to the duty Which it owed to the country, and it would work a public mischief instead of remedying a public wrong. He should not follow the Right Hon. Gentleman through all the details rf the case. He (Mr. C.) was, tterly unacquainted with Mr. Kenrick, having never, to his knowledge, been in the same room with him, and he had, therefore, no kind of personal feeling in his favour; but he must say, that he still retained the opinion which he entertained on Friday—that this was one of the most trumpery cases, on which it was attempted to establish so grave a charge. that he had ever heard of. The extent of blame to which Mi. Kenrick was liable was, that of having exhibited a most indiscreet, and, in some respects, discreditable want of temper on his• second interview with Canfor. He thought the charge, on the ground of Mr. Kenrick having refused the search-warrant, had been given up, but on this subject the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite seemed to differ, not only from Gentlemen on his (Mr. C.'s) side of the House, but from his own friends. Mr. TIETtNEY said, he had distinctly stated that he imputed no blame whatever to Mr. &crick for refusing the scarak, warrant, bat for not taking steps to see whether the search warrant was neceuary. Mr. Secretary CANNING said, it appeared then that the charge of Mr. Kenrick having suppressed a charge of felony was altogether abandoned. With re spect to his conduct on his second interview with CanfT, it was impossible not to admit that Mr. Kenrick had suffered his temper and discretion to be completely overcome; and that, in that state of mind, he had acted in a manner which could not be justified. It was bet just, however, to bring the complaint and the punish. anent together, and to consider how far the proposed punishment was apportioned to Mr. Kenrick's admitted offence. It was for the House to determine whether Mr. Kenrick's loss of temper, with that most nnpro yoking of men, whose demeanour they had all wit nessed at the Bar of the Mouse, before him—it was for the House to sty, whether with such a man as that witness in front of him, his loss of temper was such a proof of human infirmity. as called upon them to docim him to the greatest disgrace which could be inflicted, namely, an Address from the House of Commons to the Crown, to remove him from the Bench of Justice ? Taking the crime and the punishment together, he could not, in his conscience, say that the House-could inflict such a punishment for such an offence safely, of consistently with the interests of the country. If they stopped short of that punishment, he repeated, that any intermediate course would only have the effect of blasting the character of the man, and "rendering hint unfit for the duties of his office. Under such ctreum stances he must say, without defending the conduct of Mr. Kenrick, that he was not prepared to vote fur the Resolutions of the Honourable and Learned Gentleman. Ile doubted whether the moral faiths 'Which might be imputable to persons filling judicial situations ought to be visited with such grave political consequences, or whether it would be expedient for the House of Com mons to scrutinize rigorously the private life even of persons filling the highest offices of justice, or to insti tute inquiries into their moral conduct which Might operate to the prejudice of those venerable characters? Before the House could agree to the Resolutions of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, they must be ready to go intoan inquiry into the private character and moral conduct of the most venerable Magistrate: io the court , try. Nothing, in fact, was proved against Mr. Kenrick, except his indiscreet and indefensible conduct on his second Impte view with Canfor; and it would be doing a public mischief Instead of a public good, if the House were on that ground to address the Crown fur his removal front the lknch. Mr. H. SUMNER. expressed his astonishment at the view tAken of the case by the Right_ Hon. Gentleman, and at the severe strictures which had been passed upon the tnanner in which the petitioner Canfor had given his evidence at the bar. It should be recollected this man was a p:rton of no education, and that he had adopted a manner which he thought would evince his independence, and about whiCh he might' eterwards boast to his pot-companions, when he detailed to then* his conduct at the bar of that House. But although he (Mr. Holme Sumner) could find no other excuse for . / that mane - bound to si deuce were which be Ii occurred. inducement been repress of Canter's question as Public ; ant did not alte spect to the which then one fact w rick might not a good he could t had been tc Kenricic had [Mr. W. L 1 those into of order]. — etas in which was the simple --(Hear).—Tl Won that the re Dlr. learlck country with& blr. DEIt neighbour, a of his charm charge bein quested him he was him tion. For t Mr. genricl "for into ens warmth of House had was fit to be tieuce with would be in he did not q been realms, Nottingham, b airy even that Sir FRA' to be—a qv sue in any ther Mr. Kt of character filling two and Judge decidedly 1 the transact to be preset. seeing that all the evidt vary to his j Learned Fri the House I tens the rest own investi ought to b himself tge what discre course, he c go all the Friend (Mr. nion chip, course whi, . vide could obsery ing— dismissi ng he should - , Mr. Thorpe appeared to Ir far lighter tha very naiads& Mr. CODA deed, most en coavbsee him I bfr. DIN) itr disraeteris Masan wbo soady to his alea. resting a Hesse on the . bk.CROK Youtick. but I .atul el the ael Idr. LOCK losauvanisaie Hien ceuki without impel Mr. WY! in Mr. Ken . clared that ways given the stricture thought. th .particularll *base judg fact of his vere dealin he doubted cedant. . 'against bin situation— fsr a Gent had beans upon anott rensain a 1 great /are had been p mix amnia ft* aadresi hat no an aad be dwell quire say t Mr. H. whom lb* as being e begged to wai algal beds G bt mai the Anvil- Mr. MA I wile s dim Kenrick; that het, hl foresee kegs Mr. WYI proceed** able Mentos was eon y . fr Mr. Dini Padiameet ; 'Wen a t the Weave; it wee his d ' , Armlet a di Win.' vP 1 Mr. S. to inquire The Nov ap Address a '