Lords Sitting of 14 April 1825

ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS.
The Lord Chancellorpresented a petition against the Catholic Claims. He observed, that it was respectfully worded, and properly drawn up. He took that opportunity of stating, that the noble lord near him (lord Holland) showed, by what he said last night, that his meaning had been misunderstood. He had not said, that the words of petitions ought never to be commented upon. On the contrary, he thought it very natural, when noble lords disapproved of the language or terms of a petition, that they should mention their disapprobation; and, if they approved of
1336
the style and object of a petition, that they should pass it by unnoticed.
The Duke of Newcastlepresented a petition against the Catholic claims, from Redford, and expressed his hope that the table of the House would soon be covered with similar petitions. It was full time for the people of this country to step forward, and declare their sentiments on this subject; and he hoped that every honest man would put his name to petitions against concessions to the Catholics, the danger of granting which was so strongly apprehended by the nation. He thought that the sense of that danger, expressed by the petitioners, was not altogether unworthy of their lordships' notice.
Lord Kinghoped that their lordships had been edified by the very tolerant petition which they had just heard read. The petitioners, in the fulness of their generosity, were willing to allow the Roman Catholics to worship God in their own way; but this, it seemed, was the utmost extent of their toleration to one-third of his majesty's subjects, whom they wished to exclude from the privileges of freemen. Their lordships had heard something last night of its having been said that the clergy were proscribed. Now, he must say, that the noble duke, who hoped that every honest man in the country would come forward and sign petitions against the Catholics, had made the most sweeping proscription he was acquainted with; for, under the stigma of dishonesty, he proscribed all the Roman Catholics of the United Kingdom, and in addition to them, all those Protestants who did not choose to sign such petitions as that which the noble duke had presented. Though the endeavours made to get up petitions of this kind were great, the opinion of the country on the question could not be disguised. The hope to raise again the cry of "No Popery," which had so much influence some years ago, was vain. That horrid cry was now dead, he trusted, for ever.

CONDUCT OF JUDGE KENRICK.
The Earl of Essexsaid, he had formerly troubled their lordships with some observations relative to the conduct of Mr. Kenrick, who was a judge. He had then asked the noble and learned lord some questions to which he had received no satisfactory answers. If he had since abstained from bringing the matter before their lordships, it was from a wish to ground on it some

1337
definite proceedings, to which, he being a judge, there were a great many technical objections, and some almost insuperable difficulties. Since he had mentioned the subject to their lordships, another affair had been made public, involving the grossest violation of justice on the part of Mr. Justice Kenrick. He knew, also, that several magistrates of Surrey had refused to set on the bench with Mr. Kenrick. Indeed, it was every magistrate's interest, it was for every magistrate's honour, that conduct which appeared so very flagrant should be reprobated. In the latter case, in which Mr. Kenrick was implicated, he could not state the particulars, because the proceedings had been compressed. In the other case, as reported in the newspapers, and as detailed in the speech of the Attorney-general, there were circumstances which excited the greatest disgust. Several magistrates of Surrey had expressed very strong opinions on the subject. After all these proceedings, he wished to know had Mr. Kenrick retired? Was he still a Welch judge? was he not still a justice of the peace for the county of Surrey? He felt strongly that there had been a flagrant violation of justice; but be saw no mode in which he could proceed against the offender. He could only, therefore, repeat his former questions, and wished particularly to ask the noble and learned lord, whether any communication had been made to him on the subject of these proceedings from the court of King's-bench? The business, he was aware, must remain in the hands of the noble and learned lord: it was for him to act in it as he thought proper. He could only say for himself, that if the noble and learned lord declared that he did not mean to remove him from the commission, if he did not think fit to displace him from the magistracy, he should not have one word further to say.
The Earl of Liverpoolreminded the noble earl, that Mr. Kenrick, as a Welch judge, was in the same situation as other judges, and could not be removed but by an address to the Crown.
The Earl of Essexsaid, that this was the difficulty which made him decline taking any proceedings; but Mr. Kenrick was not only a judge, he was also in the commission of the peace.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the noble earl and their lordships must be aware, that for any thing Mr. Kenrick had done as a judge, he could only be
1338
removed by an address to the Crown. In his conduct as a justice, it was also known to their lordships, that on representations made to the keeper of the Great Seal, he might be struck out of the commission. He must, however, state, that he had always been very cautious how he listened to representations against magistrates. There was no part of his duty which required more caution. He had in a particular case, refused to attend to numerous representations and petitions, stating, that a magistrate had applied to his own use monies which he had levied as fines on convicting persons of offences. These representations were very strong, and were supported by numerous affidavits; but it afterwards turned out, that this magistrate brought actions against all the parties who had petitioned against him, and convicted them of perjury. Had he proceeded on these affidavits, and struck this gentleman out of the commission, he should have acted with great injustice. He had seen no account of what had taken place in any court of justice, relative to Mr. Kenrick, but what he had seen in newspapers; which were not very correct authority. Mr. Kenrick moved in the court of King's-bench for a criminal information; which was refused, on the ground that he had previously defended himself by writing letters to the Stamford News. He saw nothing in this which should make any communication from the court of King's-bench to him necessary; and he had received none. As to the other case, he knew nothing of it. He had nothing before him, therefore, calling in any way for his interference with regard to Mr. Kenrick.