HC Deb 28 June 1825 vol 13 cc1408-10
Mr. Tremayne

rose to present a petition from Mr. Kenrick, stating that he had been taken by surprise by the order of the House to examine witnesses upon a charge against him, and praying the indulgence of the House for time to prepare for his defence, in the case of Franks.

Mr. Denman

said, he was by no means certain, that the petition ought to make any difference in the course which he intended to pursue. The examination of the witnesses was relative to certain papers before the House, and of which he had given due notice a fortnight ago. With reference to Mr. Kenrick, he wished to throw no impediment in the way of his having every advantage in drawing up instructions for his counsel. He should therefore propose, that the witnesses should attend on Thursday. It had been intimated to him last night, that it was Mr. Kenrick's intention to call witnesses in his behalf. There would be no time to proceed in such a course during the present session; and if this were the wish of Mr. Kenrick, it would certainly lead to a different arrangement. But he did not think it ought to postpone all inquiry until the next session; it ought only to postpone his answer, and in the mean time the inquiry ought to proceed. It was not certain, that after hearing the whole case, Mr. Kenrick would feel it necessary to call any witnesses at all. Great inconvenience might arise from postponing the examination of witnesses, for it was possible that they might not be forthcoming next session. The papers upon which these proceedings were grounded had been, for a long time, in the hands of members, and must have been well known to Mr. Kenrick. He should therefore move, that the witnesses be called in on Thursday.

Mr. Secretary Peel

thought the question important, whether the House ought to institute any inquiry upon the charge and affidavits. It might not, however, be necessary to have any discussion upon that point; but, the most important question: was, that as the charge involved two accusations, each of which might be tried before the ordinary tribunals, whether the House ought to institute any proceedings. If Mr. Kenrick did prefer any charges against Franks from malicious motives, that alone would subject him to prosecution. If Mr. Kenrick had published a malignant libel against Franks, why did not Franks institute legal proceedings against Kenrick? Would it be consistent with justice, for the House to institute a Prosecution against Mr. Kenrick, which would compel him to disclose his defence, while he was still open to a criminal prosecution at law? Until one o'clock that day, Mr. Kenrick had received no official information upon the subject; and had therefore had no opportunity of instructing counsel. It might be essential to Mr. Kenrick to call witnesses as to the character of Franks. Mr. Kenrick might be able to prove, that the general bad character of Franks justified those suspicions upon which he had acted as a magistrate. It was impossible for the House to hear the charge against Mr. Kenrick, and suffer the defence to be postponed for six months. The House had no alternative but that of postponing the case altogether, or conducting it at once to its conclusion. If the charge should be substantiated, a case of great moral misconduct would be made out against Mr. Kenrick; but, why should not the inquiry be pursued in a court of justice? When it was considered that many of the facts had been known as far back as October 1824, and all of them before the 1st of February last, surely the learned gentleman was culpable in allowing Mr. Kenrick to go a circuit with this charge hanging over him, and to bring forward his accusations only at this extremely late period of the session. If the learned gentleman proceeded in his motion, it would be impossible to say when the session would terminate; and he, for one, was of opinion, that it would be highly improper to keep parliament sitting so long for this one object.

Mr. Denman

expressed his desire to meet, as far as he could, what appeared to him to be the prevailing sentiment of the House, as to the inconvenience of proceeding further in this case during the present session. Under this feeling he should withdraw his motion; although he thought it was hardly possible for the right hon. gentleman to preserve his countenance, when he asserted that Mr. Kenrick had that day, for the first time, been made acquainted with the charge. He should, however, certainly bring it forward next session; unless, in the mean time, circumstances should occur very materially to, change his view of the case.

The motion was then withdrawn.