The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-06-22 00:00:00

414"....=A01

N

eon evollad Ma_ fgefedift_of knowing what was the &pip pm-
' ?erred Ow The H on. Gentleman might nay pit isle.
what be just NSW to the House, or any of dell fl=abssaV
which ha Oandanowdl Mt. leorick. or at
!Waft Me kb* prielliedeeof wltneeses until the lawn
and reed by the Members of the House.
Mr. S. BOURNE agreed with the Right Ham. Seemsery (Mr.
Peel) that the charge should be known by the Howes; the -lowest
offender in the lowest Court in the kingdom was Fully acquainted
with the crime of which be stood accused, by a apecilic charge being
brought against them, yet here they would put the individual on his
trial, leaving him to conjecture his offence.
• Mr. ABE RC RO Al BY contended that the objeedons of the Right
Hon. Gentleman would not hold good. When the petition was
presented by his Learned Friend on a former occasion, more than
one Hon. Member rose and stated that Mr. Kenrick desired nothing
more than to hear the subject matter of the complaint against hint
fairly stated. On that petition, therefore, he (Mr. Abercromby)
said the House had the charge. His Hon. Friend presented a pe-
tition praying inquiry, and there it was stated that the only ques-
tion upon Mr. Kenrick's part, was how soon that inquiry should
take place—and that it could not for his wishes take place too anon.
The petition and the documents connected with it only Aliowed,
therefore, what the evidence would be when produced. Any thing
his Learned Friend (Mr. Denman) had said, was only in anticips-
tt an of what he thought would be proved : but did not contain any
new charge; that chugs was contained in the petition, and was in
point of fact one of the clearest cases he ever recollected.
Mr. Secretary PEEL said, in explanation, that he had not de-
fended Mr. Kenrick, but wished to support Parliamentary usage—
that usage was, that- the House should not take any deterntination
or enter into any inquiry at all, until it was in possession of the
papers upon which the inquiry was to be founded.
Mr. S. BOURNE ex aincd.
Mr. C. W. WYNN t ght the House should be in possession
of the papers, that they might be able to decide whether there
was a prima /kir case or not, before they took any other proceed.
ings. It was said, the individual complained of was unfit to be •
Judge. They ought to be very cautious in their measures upon
such a serious case.
Mr. TIERNEY said, if be rightly understood the case, there
was no charge against Mr. Kenrick as a Judge, but as a Magis.
trate. if the complaint was against his conduct as a Judge, that
would be another matter, and might be very differently dealt with ;
but he would like to know whether that House had not uoon peti-
tion, and complaint of an individual. a full right to inquire into
the conduct of a Justice of the Peace, anti whether in that capa-
city he win not open to their censure. Nothing. however, could
be more absurd than to say that his Learned Friend (Mr.
Denman) who was, as he distinctly said, no party in the charge,
should bring forward some distinct ground of accusation. His
Learned Friend in his situation.ceuld not do so, unless he was pre-
pared to take the information atomics as his own, and rely wholly
on its truth; that was a lineal-conduct which it would be found im.
possible, he rather thought, for Members of that House to adopt
with regard to petitions. Ills Learned Friend took tha wood
course in presenting a petition complaining of an act of injustice
and oppression; that petition he now oilers to the substantiate by
evidence, and there could be no just ground, according to the usual
pvactice. as tar as he had known, for rejecting it upon the ground
cs" want of information. If the charge was substantiated, the
next question would be, could It suffer a person convicted of such
conduct to remain in the Magistracy ? The House therefore at pre.
sent had nothing to do but with the petition against a Magistrate ;
whether it would recommend any further proceedings, was a matter
for consideration hereafter.
' Mr. C. WYNN explained. It was necessary. he thought, the
criminal matter of the proceeding should be stated in some way or
other, so that the House should be in powsesion of the charge.
' The SOLICITOR GENERA I. contended, that the going into
evidence without being in possession of the matter to which the
evidence applied, was at variance with all the forms of proceeding
io every Court he was acquainted with. Proceeding against an
individual in that House without telling him of his crime was
a bad precedent. and pregnant with injustice.
Mr. ABE RC ROM BY said the motion was for the purpose of
asibstantiating the facts of the petition. If those facts were proved,
there was ground of censure upon Mr. Kenrick—if they were not
proved, there was an end of the matter.
Mr. TIERNEY recommended his Honourable and Learned
• Friend to leave out the consideration of the letter, and confine
himself to an examination of the affidavits and matter of petition.
Mr. BROUDHA3I never understood that the House hampered
itself by the formalities of written charges in any thing leas than
cases of impeachment. The general practice eras exactly as his
Honourable and Learned Friend had proceeded in this case. It
was very remarkable, indeed, that there had been two axis very
lately, during the present Session, perfectly similar to the present.
' One, the petition presented respecting the conduct of the Duke of
Manchester, by an Honourable and Learned Friend of his ( Dr. I
Lushington) and the other a petition presented by himself from
• Mr. Bishop Burnett, complaining of certain oppresive acts of Lord
' Charles Somerset, which he intended to move to be referred to a
I Select Committee to-morrow evening. Now, it was very odd, that
in neither of these cases had they heard one word of the necessity
t of a written charge, or of deciding without information, urged as
t a reason tar the refusal of the consideration demanded by the
I petitioners. They were in fact, upon petitions, a mere Court of In-
' guilty—not judicially, but inquisitorially engaged. He did not,
I however, rise to do more then protest against the assertion that
• Members were compelled to bring forward a written accusation.
He knew and had known the individual complained of (Mr.
Kenrick) for some time at the bar ; lie had always understood him
• to be an honourable and humane man, and he had very great hopes
that he would be able to free hinotelf from all imputations.
Whether he was so or not, however, that House was not to he
t cramped in the enjoyment of its right to consider and examine
complaints upon the petition.
Mr. DENMAN said that it was from accident merely, that the
' letter of Mr. Kenrick had not been printed with the other papers.
He was ready to admit that it would be premature to call any evi-
dence respecting the case of Franks, and that part of the motion he
begged leave to withdraw. The petition of Camfor, however, con.
tained specific matter of charge. He 'Mould therefore move that
Mark Money Camfor attend the House on Friday, and that the
House resolve itself into a Committee on that day. He could not
pretend to say what other measures might be necessary, He did
not say an impeachment, but limited his own proceedings to an ad-
I dress to the Crown fur the removal of Mr. kenrick from the ma-

• .
-4 themselves to be Christians sad
- of Pro.

gistracy.
Mr. PEEL thought it would be the better course of the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman to postpone the motion for examining Mr.
Camfor until Friday next, as Mr. Kenrick might be able to submit
a statement to the House, which would supersede the necessity of
examining Mr. Camfor.
Mr. DENMAN said that the Hon. Gentleman suggested new
matter to the House, which was incompatible with the proposition
that be intended to submit. Whatever statement might be made
would not supersede the necessity of inquiry. He could not there-
tore consent to the suggestion of the Right Hon. Gentleman. He
at thessme time was anxious that Mr. Kenrick should have every
facility and cppottunity of replying to the charges brought against
him.

The SPEAKER said that there were three questions before the
House, the acquiescence with one of which was not at all incon-
sistent with the propriety of concurring with the other two.
The original motion was then put, and, together with the amend-
ments, agreed to; first, that the facts of the petition of Mr. Cam-
for be taken into consideration on Friday next; secondly, that the
petition of Mr. ramfor, together with the above notice, be commu-
nicated to Mr. Kenrirk ; and, thirdly, that Mr. Kenrick have per.
mission to attend by himself or Counsel, to reply to the charges to
be preferred against him.
Mr. BROUGHA3I suggested that an earlier hour than usual
ought to be fixed for going into the inquiry, in order that the in -
vestigation might be more speedily disposed of. He would suggesl,
that the inquiry should commence at four o'clock, at the sitting o'
the House.

PI,EL agreed in the expediency of commencing at a still
earlier hour, he would my three or bait-put three.
M. lIROIIGHAM said, that in that event his Non. Friend
would not be able to attend.

Mr. DEN MAN disclaimed any desire of interposing his private
convenience with a public duty, but he thought the inquiry would
be of such short duration, that it would not be necessary for the
House to meet earlier than the usual hour: if, however, there wan
a prospect of its continuance, he would be satisfied to agree to any
arrangement that might suit the accommodation of the House.
It WAS finally agreed upon that the inquity should commence at
four o'clock on Friday.
CO3IRINATION LAWS.

Mr. MA XWEITCpres----enir7l; petition from the weavers of the
west of Scotland against toe re-enactment of the Combination
Laws, and praying fr enquiry into them. Re bore testimony to
the good conduct of the labouring manufacturers of Glasgow.
and offered some ohmervations, enforcing the expediency of acced-
ing to the prayer of the petition.
Mr. PEEL did not mean to follow the Hon. Member into the
line of observatinas he had addressed to the House. lie would
simply say on the bringing up of the petition, that the report of the
Committee had been prepared with a perfectly impartial regard to
the interests of the masters and workmen, and with a due attention
to the interests of both.
UNITARIAN MARRIAGES.

Mr. W. SMITH roes to present a petitions from the Unitarian
Diaseeters, relating to the celebration of their nmrriage ceremony.
The grievance of which they complained was done away by the
bald of the late King. At the time that that str?te was enacted it
had been sail that he (Mr. S.) had admitted that the Unitarian
dissenters were still subject to the common law. He denied that
he had ever made such an admission. That statute, he con.
tended, relieved them from whatever penaltics they might have
been before subject ea. He had the authority of the A-elibishop of
Canterbury, that it was not intended that any penalty should at-
tach to those who disbelieved in the Trirtity,any more than to throe
di.senters who did not agree with the Established Church on other
points of doctrine, but that it was not intended to open the door. of
that stance to those who were promoters of profaneness, either by
their writing., or by advised speaking. The opinion of bard
Manstield went to the name extent, and it was his opinion that the
object of that statute was to place the Unitarian dissenters on the
seine footing that other dissenters were placed by the passing of the
Toleration Act. He felt the more anxiously on this subject, as a
doubt bad been lately thrown out in the other House of Parliament,
and trom a high quarter there too—whether or not, after the pass-
ing of the statute, the Unitarian dissenters were still afree:ed by the
common lan. That such a doubt should be entertained there wan
the mrre a mond of ugret, as it wan only there that a Bill had
been frustrated fur complying with the wiehes and objects of the
petitioners—a Billiwhtch h.ulemet with the general approbation and
support of that House. That Bill was al.oaperoyed of by the two
Archbishops, and by s:x Bishops of the other House of Parliament.

. • 'IN
vv.‘
Ara
• THE BRITISH- PEE.