The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-06-29 00:00:00

. .
the fault did not deserve such a degree of animadversion. It
could not be the proper course to adopt a line of proceeding incon.
sistent w the interests of the country to stop short, indeed, as fae
as tbs right of a positive punishment was concerned ; but at the
same time to render the individual unlit to hold office to the magis.
tracy. That was the short and clear view of the case, and without
attempting to defend the conduct of Mr. Kenrick, he was not pre-
pared
to vote for the resolution of the Hon. (lent., which was in fart
nugatory, unless followed up by an address to the Crown for the re.
moral of Mr. Kenrick from the magistracy, which was a step that
his conduct neither warranted nor deserved. And if the course of an
address were not adopted, but the resolutions of the lion. and
Learned Gentleman simply passed, could the House approve of
such a proceeding, or send a Magistrate out to administer theduties
and functions attached to his situation with the blame of that House
fixed upon his conduct ? He could notlconcur in the idea that al,
moral fault was deserving of being visited with so grave nod weighty
a punishment, or that the House of Commons ought to inquire into
the private conduct of persons in the Commission of the Peace.
And yet Gentlemen, before they consented to vote for such a resolu-
tion, it ust hold themselves prepared to go into an investigation of
the private life, and • strict inquity concerning the moral conduct
of individuals. It was quite sufficient to say nothing had been
proved against the Individual in question except indiscreet conduct ;
but he (Mr. Canning) put it to the House whether that alone was
sufficient to warrant his removal from the bench of Magistrates.
In one word, the House should not interfere to that extent, except
circumstances had arisen of a nature to render every interferenee sl tort
of that productive of great mischief to the country, and that the
present wu not a case of that kind he trusted be had made suffi-
ciently apparent.
Mr. H. SUMNER said the evidence of Cantor was consistent
with the tenor of his petition, and his previous statement to him
(Mr. H. Sumner) shortly after the occurrence. lilt. Kenrick could
not be acid to have exercised a sound discretion, particularly on his
second interview with Canfor. On the whole. he could not conceive!
a case, which on the face of it rendered a magistrate more unfit to
exercise his functions than that in which Mr. Kenrick had been
concerns 1. A Noble Lord had borne testimony to the character of
Mr. Kenrick, and stated him to be a good husband and father ; he
had no doubt he was—he had also been said to be a good neigh-
bour. Ile (Mr. Sumner) did not agree in that opinion, and thought
he could adduce instances of his unneighbourly conduct.
Mr. W. LAMB rose to order—He deprecated the introduction
of personalities—topic of character should not be introduced in a
debate like the present.
Mr. H. SUMNER resumed. As a Noble Lord had appealed to
character In behalf of 31r. Kenrick, he thought himself at Liberty
to adduce opposite evidence.
Mr. DENISON thought Mr. Kenrick justified in declining to
issue a search-warrant. His conduct on the occasion of the second
interview had been rash and highly to he reprehended; but he
could neither agree with the Resolution of the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman (31r. Denman). nor that of the Right lion. Secretary of
State (31r. Peel), because he thought the one too harsh, and that
the other cold not go far enough. The Opposition aide of the
House had been arrayed against Mr. Kenrick, and along with it the
almost omnipotent power of the Press, which in the present ins,ance
had been unjustly exercised, in cntleavouring to bring about a con-
viction of guilt without a previous trial.
Sir F. BURDETT could not agree in the principle meant to be
promulgated, that some great act of oppression was requisite to in-
duce the House to inflict what was its greatest mark of censure and
disapprobation. He thought Mr. Kenrick evidently unfit tor the
situation he occupied. and that it was of importance to the public
that Magistrates should know they were liable to be visited with
punishment and censure for minor misconduct, as well as for
greater and more grave offences. Such an understanding would
make them much more careful and strict in the discharge
of their duty. However, for his onn part, he felt willing
to withdraw the resolution, and leave it to the Secretary of State
for the Home Departmens to inquire into the whole of Mr. Ken-
rick's conduct, and take such steps as he (Mr. Peel) might think
necessary. The Honourable Baronet concluded by adverting to
the petition of a person lately holding a high and responsible situ-
ation, that of Chief Justice of Sierra Leone, who complained of hay-
' lag been dismissed without inquiry, in a rash and inconsiderate
manner. The petition was one of considerable importance to the
individual and the public, anti he (Sir F. Burdett) would take an
early opportunity in the next Session to bring it under the consi-
deration of the titmice.
Mr. W. COURTENAY opposed the principle propounded by
the Hon. Baronet who had just sat dawn, who offered to commit to
' Ministers the exercise of authority involved in advising the re-
moval of Magistrates from the Commisaion of the Peace, and that
' too in a case not strong enough to warrant such an act of interference.
The light in which the Committee was to consider this subject was
a very difficult one. They were to consider whether the facts which
had beeneproved against Mr. Kenrick were sufficiently important
to render It necessary that he should be dismissed from his judicial
situation. He for one could not consider the case proved against him
such as to call upon the Committee to recommend the House to
enforce that power which it possessed, but which ought not to be
used but on great and very urgent occasions. He would ask the
Hon. Baronet (Sir F. Burdett) whether it was not of the utmost im.
portance for the preservation of this law that it should be exercised
most sparingly, and in those cases only where no doubt whatever
could exist of the expediency of its application ? He conceived that'
such was the principle on which alone the House could be called
upon to interfere; anti when a case of such a nature did exist, then
the power possessed by Parliament would be found to be of great
and beneficial importance to the country. If such were not the
principle to be observed, he thought the application of this power
might be abused to the worst purposes. Then, if he were correct in
this view, he would ask was the case now before the Committee of
that nature as to make it safe or proper to proceed to recommend
the House to move an Address to his !Majesty for the removal of
this individual? Undoubtedly the lion. and Learned Gentleman
who introduced this petition to the House did not think so, for he
bad made no such proposition. He had moved a resolution ca.
taioly, but not what he thought ought to be adopted by the Com-
mittee ; the either they should proceed to address his Majesty, or
should dismiss the subject altogether. There was no intermediate
course that could with propriety be puretted. If the Committee
considered the only legitimate end wherein this power was to be
exercised was where the ease imperatively called upon them to re-
commend his Majesty to dismiss a Judge, then he thought this
Mgt was one which could only be considered as a light and trivial
ease. He did not certainly mean to say that it was a light matter
for a Magistrate to lose his temper when called upon to exercise his
magisterial functions ; but the case, when compared with the power
appealed to, was certainly light and trivial, and such as the Coro-
nuttee ought not to entertain. The course proposed by the Hon.
Baronet (Sir F. Burdett) would be most mischievous, most danger.
oils, and most unconstitutional.
. . . . .

Mr. DEN \I AN observed, that as it happened that no Hon.
Member had come forward.to defend the corduct of 111 r. Kenrick,
but that all had united in censuring it. some in terms even stronger
than those used by himself, he should have thought there would
have been no difficulty as to the course In which the Conimittee
ought to proceed. After all it was a question simply of degree. That
Mr. Kenrick's conduct was open to censure was universally admit-
ted, for even the Right Hon. the Secretary of State for Foreign'
Affairs had admitted it, although he disapproved of the resolution
which had been proposed, for the Right Hon. Gentleman had cer-
tainly said that he considered that .Mr. Kenrick's conduct was a
most disgraceful instance of want of temper t and yet the Right
Hon. Gentleman thought it was a light and trivial case, and which
did not require the power of Parliament to be exercised. He
should have no reluctance in adopting the words of the Right Hon.
Gentleman instead of those which he had done. No one could
doubt that the charge had been most clearly proved against Mr.
Kenrick. s He should like to know whether if any lion. Member, if
on his oath as a juryman, were to have the question put to him
" Aye" or " No" was the charge proved—he should like to know
who was the individual that would on his oath or on his honour rise
in his place, or by a single cheer declare that it was not ? Agreed
then as they were es to the full proof of the charge, he would
say that the nature of it was such that every epithet he
had applied to it was perfectly well warranted, and most
undoubtedly true. Under these circumstances, he did not re-
gret that he had brought the case forward, although the Com.
mittee should think proper that they ought nos to proceed to any
further measures. lie should therefore trouble the Chairman to
put the Resolution, but he had no wish to enter into any further
discussion on the subject. He would, however, observeothat the
censure which his Resolution was intended to convey was not for
Mr. Kenrick's refusing the search-warrant, but for his not enter-
taining the charge of felony. The doing neither was a neglect of
duty on the part of a Magistrate which called fur the severest cen-
sure of this House.

Mr. CROKER was willing to admit that the indiscretion, haste,
and warmth of temper which was shown by Mr. Kenrick, on the
occasion stated in the evidence, in his endeavouring to get back the
fleece and the note, was very blameable—and if there were any lea.
son to suppose there were any sinister motive on his part it would
have considerably heightened the blame. It appeared, that how.
ever great was the warmth evinced by Mr. Kenrick in ob.
taining them, yet his object in doing so was praiseworthy: for he
had stated by his Counsel, and also in his petition, that his reason
for wishing to keep possession of the fleece and note was, because
he thought there was a suit then pending between the parties, re.
specting this transaction ; and the proof Mit such was the motive
of Mr. Kenrick appeared in the fact, that the fleece and note re.
mained in the hands of the constable tip to the trial or the action
against him, and long before Mr. Kenrick imagined that he was to
be attacked on the subject, or that Mr. Cantor would thus act
against him. This observation cot having been made by any Hon.
Member who had spoken on the question, he had thought it not
unimportant to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact.
Mr. I.OOKH ART rose for the purpose of observing that there
was a very great inconvenience arising from the circumstance of
including the names of persons in the Commission of the Peace who
were at the same time appointed to a seat on the Bench. By these
means they were often likely to become involved in cases where the
question would almost unavoidably turn upon the propriety of their
holding a judicial otlice, although the point would arise merely in.
cidentally. If all gentlemen, therefore, who held such judicial
situations, should--he would not say be struck out—but on a future
occasion be omitted front the list of magistrates, it then could never
happen that their names would be brouicht forward in any question
where there competency to hold those situations might be meiden-
tally raised against them. (Wear. hear, hear.)
Mr. H. SC MINER wished to know what was the authority which
the Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Croker) had fun stating that the
fleece and the note remained in the hands of the constable till the
period of the trial ?
Mr. CROKER said it was in the petition of Mr. Kenrick him.
self. The Honourable Gentleman then referred to, and read that
part of the petition in which this statement occurred.
Mr. C. W. W. IV YNN observed, that whatever course should
be adopted by the Committee, he trusted it would not be that
which had been recommended by the Honourable Baronet oppo-
site (Sir Francis Burdett). Any course would be better than what
had been proposed by that Honourable Baronet. Ile must say,
that in his opinion a course so turtle, so ineotripeutet, so likely to

•
' disgrace the whole administ-sits,'.. e could not possibly be
conceived. As to the individual so.o c conduct was now under
consideration, he (Mr. Wynn) had ists beard any charge made
against his conduct ass judge. Fr. t!,.v circumstance of his con.
notion with that pan of the country where Mr. Kenrick presided
on the Bench' he was likely to have heard ouch a charge if any had
ever been raised as to the manner in a Itch he discharged his duties.
Ile had certainly many times asked time question of persara
residing there, and the answer had uniformly been, that Mr. K.'s
conduct as a judge had been !donee most unexceptionable. The
Honourable Member for Surrey, (Mr. 11. Sumner) had stated. that
as evidence had been given in favour of Mr. lionrick's charaeter,
that therefore he might give evidence against it. Now, certainly
lie bad never heard that in a Court of Law that evidence was ever
i given against a .person, although it was uniformly the case tore-ceive (l :cc in favour of the individual. But in Courts of Law
tile witness was open to cross-examination, and he might suppose
that in such a case such questions as these might be asked hum :
Are you disinterested in the evidence you give ? Have you no
quarrel with the prisoner? The ouestlons might, perhaps, go
farther, and it tuight be all in a fair course of cross-examination to
ask—Have you had any lawsuit against this man ? (A laugh.)
Have you at this moment any '..mtuit pending against him?
(Much laugleer.) Such questions would be very naturally asked.
Now, he had understood that the Honourable Gentleman was at
this moment engaged in law with Mr. Kenrick, and which circum.-
stance, according to the course of human nature, might be suffi.
cient to bins the mind imperceptibly to the Honourable Gentleman
himself. It had been said that front the irritability of temper
evinced by Mr. Kenrick, he" might very properly be thought
unfit to discharge the duty of a judge. But might not such
an an argument as this be carried much farther? Might
it not be said that gentlemen might he too intemperate to be
tit to disesarge the duties of a Member or Parliament? Why it
might happen that some person in a Committee of the House might
display so irritable and ungovernable a temper as even to resort to
open and personal violence against one of its members. (laughter.)
Such a person could not of course be a legislator. (Laughter.) At
all events he could not be fit for being the Member for the county
of Surrey. (Much laughter.) If temper, indeed, were to be the
only
.test of qualification to discharge the important duties of a
Magistrate or a Judge, then there were malty most upright and
able Judges whom he remembered, whose tempers were not always
of the most mild and forbeariog kind. IVlth regard to the charge
before the Committee, it divided itself into two parts. The
fleet was as to the refusal of granting the warrant. Now
he had not heard any Honomabie Member say that he would
not have refused the warrant under the circumstances. The
summons was no proceeding whatever, nor was it necessary
take the deposition of the party upon it. The second part of the
charge was as to the detention of Canfor and the measures adopted
for getting possession of the fleece and note. Here he thought the
coraleet of Mr. Kenrick was censurable and blameable, but at the
same time there was no reason to believe that it proceeded from any
thing that was like a partial or corrupt malice. (With reference to
the compromise of the action, he should observe that the law said,
that a Magistrate should be entitled to a not'ce previous to any
action being commenced against him, in order that he might bane
an opportunity to tender amends; and if Mr. Kenrick had
tendered sufficient amends he would hare been entitled to a
verdict. If it had been proved that that gentleman had acted
from partial and corrupt motives, that would stamp the ease
sufficiently for this House to address his Majesty to remove hint ;
but if he did not so act, then he (Mr. Wynn) thought this wits
too slight a case for the House to resort to such a step. He
thought it was not enough far this House to come to a qualified
censure upon Mr. Ktrriet's conduct, when the only question
was, whether there were any grounds for removing him altogether
from his judicial situation; and that therefore, as the case did not
warrant such a conclusion, the only course they could adopt was
that recommended by the amendment of his Right lion. Friend.
Mr. noLai E Sli MN ER remarked that the Right Hon. Gen.
tleman (Mr. C. W. AVYNIsIi had alluded to the possibility of a
ernss-examination, and supposed certain questions to be put, as to
whether the person cross-examined had any lawsuit pending with
Mr. Kenrick. Hutch a question bad been put to him, he should
have replied that there was no such thing to his knowledge. nor
had the Right Hon. Gentleman any right to imagine that there
was any such titer the anvil. Then. ifthe Right Hon. Gentleman
had pursued his inquiries, as to what be (Mr. 11. Sumner) thought
was most irrelevantly and improperly alluded to. he would have
received an answer. such as the queetimi which had so irrelevantly,
improperly, and with such bad feeling, been supposed, would lave
called few.
31r. MABERLY said, he felt It necessary, after the observa-
tions which the Right Hon Gentleman (Mr. C.Wynn) had made,
to state, that be had seen an account of the dispute between Mr.
Kenrick and a near relative of his, in a Morning Paper ; but that,
till then, he was entirely ignorant of the circumstance ; and that,
when he made his observations the former evening, on the present
case, he knew nothing of the dispute which had been alluded to
by the Right Honoureble Gentleman. After seeing the account,
he came down to the house to-night, with the fall intention not to
say one word upon the question, lest he should be suspected of
entertaining feelings which might very naturally be supposed to
I exist under the eirehnistances..

Mr. C. W. WYNN. in explanation, said, he was very sorry to
have been misunderstood. He knew less of the cue alluded to by
the Hon. Gentleman than he did himself. The fact to which he
(Mr. Wynn) had referred, was, a suit that he understood was now
pending in Chancery, between Bit. Keniick and the lion. Member
for Surrey (Mr. H. Sumnery. If he had been misinformed, he
begged pardon for the mistake he had been led into.
Mr. DENMAN said there were one or two things which the
Right Hon. Gentleman had stated that required observation. With
regard to the character of an individual, it might be true that In
course of the trial evidence was not admitted against the person ae.
cused, but when the Court came to pass sentence on the individual
the Judge then always inquired into character. This was certainly
the practice. But the Right Hon. Gentleman, when the question
was nearly concluded, cat-e forward and volunteered a character
about Mr. Kenrick as a Welsh Judge, which; if answered, would
lead to s debate that would be interminable. The Right Hon.
Gentleman had afterwards indulged in supposing a case. as if it
were of as most unimaginable a nature as any that could be picked
out of the Arabian Nights, about the infirmity of 'temper of a
Member of the House of-Commons. But nobody could be unaware
of the allusion intended by the Right Hon. Gentleman. There
was. however, no resemblance of a case wherein a Judge acts par.
daily and vindictively and the one which the Right Honourable
Gentleman had so ingeniously and hypothetically put.
The originat Resolution was then put and negatived without a
division, after which the amendment was cut and agreed to.
MESSAGE FROM TIM LOH DS.

Two private Bills were brought up from the ilnuse of Lords.
Also a message front the Lords, requesting to be furnished with a
copy of the Report of the Sleet Committee of this Houston the
Combination Laws.

PRINTED REPORTS OF THE POUSE.

Mr. S. RICE brought up the Report of the Committee appointed
r to consider the state and condition of the printed Repons and other
papers of this House ; and also to consider the means for providing
safe custody for them ; and also addition.:l accommodation for the
public and private Committees of the House.
The Report was reed and ordered to he laid on the table.
A conversation then ensued; is which 'Mr. S. RICE, Mr. C. W.
WYNN, Mr. CALCRAYT, and Mr. took part, as to the
House going into a Committee on the Report, er only on the
propriety of an address to his Majesty on the subject, when it was
at length arranged that the House should postpone the consider.
ation of the Report, and proceed only to consider the address.
ADDRESS TO HIS MAJESTY.
.

The Howe accordingly resolved itself into a Committee to con.
alder an Address to his Majesty, respecting the providing better
means for the safe custody of the Records and other Papers of this
House ; and also for providing additional accommodation for the
Committees.

Mr. SPRING RICE said, as the consideration of the Report
had been deferred, he should, on his part, view the present Com-
mittee as one of mere form only, and should therefore forbear
making any lengthened' observations till that Report should come
to be considered. The Hor. Member then moved a Resoluticr,
that an humble Address be preaer.tcd to his Majesty, praying that
he would be pleased to give ditections for the creciion of additioral
Committee Rooms, and a Library for the safe cus•ody of papers
for the use of the Members, with convenient rce.not to the same.
After a few words from Mr. Hut:mow GURNEY, and Mr.
Hums, the ResolutiOn was agreed to—the House resumed and
the Report was ordered to be received on Thursday next.

ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
In consequence of an observation from Mr. HUME, upon the
receiving of the Report on Thursday,
Mr. Secretary CANNING observed, that it had been his inten.
Lion to move an adjoutnment of the House on Thursday, on
which thiy it was necessary they should meet for the disposal of a
few Public Bills.

CRUELTY TO ANIIIAIS.
Mr. R. MARTIN obtained leave to bring in a mill for altering
and amending so much of the Act of {Geo. 11'. chap. 54. es relates
to the unlawfully killing, maiming, or wounding of cattle.
LAW OF 311:1:4:41ANTS BILL.
On the motion that the Law of 3lerchants Bill be read a third
time,

M. SCA R LETT opposed the Till, at matins a most hijoriotra
alteration in the policy of the law of England. By that law, as it
now stood, no man was at liberty to dispose of any goods by hand.
belonging to another person, without leaving the owner a power of
pursuing and retaking them, provided he found them un-
changed. Now, by tie present Bill, any person producing a
bill of lading, or docket, had the power of disposing of thou
goods, as if they were his own property. This alteration,
he contended, would produce the most injurious effects—
It was not to be tolerated that a dishonest factor should have the
power of borrowing mooey on the goods of another. The object of
the Bill was to give great advantages to the money lender, and an
increased facility to him anxious to borrow on property not his
own. As the practice now stood, the bill of lading did not derow
an ownership, but merely an authority in him who held it to re-
ceive the goods. It was also a laid down rule, that an individual
receiving goods as a purchaser should have an invoice or letter at
advice, as well as a bill of lading, which under the proposed alte-
ration was to be alone evidence of ownership. Ni'haf objection,
therefore, could tbere be that the factor still should he compelled
to produce the invoice and letters of advice ? The Hon. and Learned
Contlanan went on to say. that any law which gave power to raise
money, whilst it lessened the security usually required, must be
productive of evil consequences. Another serious objection to the
new law was, that it threw on the owner of the goods who might
perhaps he living in a foreign country the burden of prosecuting a
dishonest factor t so that after losing his property, he had the 'sus-
faction of being obliged to prosecute. As the law now stood, the
merchant or other person defrauded by the factor in this country.
had the power of suing him. ,lfter some further arguments in
support at his view of the case, the Honourable and Learned lien.
dentin said he should oppose the Bill as being injurious to pro-