[662 had been stated, in the speech of the Kenrick, in the Morning Chronicle? The learned counsel at the bar, that the Morn- articles in that paper not only accused ing Chronicle had animadverted upon the Mr. Kenrick of prosecuting unnecessarily conduct of Mr. Kenrick, and that the ar- and unjustly a poor man of his neighbourticles in that paper had constituted a most hood, but they said, "you have done this atrocious libel. These supposed libels because you wanted to get possession of were published in August, 1824. Be- his land." Mr. Kenrick did not deny this, tween that month of August and the en- except in one general phrase at the end suing Michaelmas term, Mr. Kenrick had of the affidavit. In this affidavit, all he to consider of his application to be made said was, "I did not tamper with the to the court of King's-bench for a crimi- wife of Franks, for the purpose of obtainnal information against the editor of that ing the freehold." But he did not say, paper, as the author of the libels in ques- that he did not prosecute the husband for tion. Most undoubtedly it was the para- that purpose, though that was the very mount duty of any man who regarded his charge. He did not say that he did not character, to have brought forward an induce the magistrate to send the poor application of this sort. It sounded, how- man to gaol, in order to wear him out, ever, most strangely in the ears of the and terrify him, and get possession of his world, that a judge should have made ap- freehold. He did not deny this imputaplication to the court of King's-bench for tion. He did not deny the charge, that he a criminal information, in consequence of used all means to induce the poor man to libels of this atrocious nature, and that plead guilty, that he might get possession redress should have been refused by the of the freehold. He made no such denial. Court [hear, hear!]. He might also He only denied that he tampered with his here animadvert upon the fact, that the wife. It was not denied that he sent same judge had prosecuted a poor in- Franks to prison-to that miserable gaol, dividual for stealing a scrap of wood of to be corrupted, and contaminated, and the value of less than twelve-pence; and, ruined, in order that he might fall an upon his proceeding to the sessions, the easier victim, and give up his freehold. man charged was instantly dismissed, and Mr. Kenrick had the opportunity of anthe costs of the prosecution were refused swering all these charges, and he never to the prosecuting judge. These were denied any of them. So far from it, in two very singular situations for a judge to another part of the proceedings, he virbe placed in. It was notorious, that a tually admitted the charges. In his letrule existed in the court of King's-bench, ter to Mr. Collett, which appeared in the that any person applying to the court for Stamford newspaper, he owned his having a criminal information against the author sent the man to gaol, and he never denied of a libel, should distinctly deny upon oath that he wished to obtain his freehold. He every imputation cast upon his character said, "About four or five years ago, I in the libel. The more atrocious was offered him, in exchange, another house, the libel, the more easy would it be to which he declined; and, from that time deny its aspersions. What were the libels to the time of his coming out of gaol, I that were the ground of this application had never, directly or indirectly, treated to the court of King's-bench? They with him, or made any offer, or, in any were all printed; and it was essential to manner, endeavoured to purchase his cotthe understanding of the case, to compare tage; I had bought another, which anthe libels with Mr. Kenrick's vindication. swered my purpose, and was indifferent He (Mr. Denman) entirely dissented about either of those, otherwise than to from many of the observations which the get rid of a bad neighbour." Thus, he articles in the Morning Chronicle con- admitted that he wanted to get rid of a tained, although there were others that bad neighbour; and he tried to effect his he approved of. But, the alleged libels purpose by means of this piece of dirty would be indeed atrocious, if they were plank [hear, hear!]. Let any man read untrue; and, for that reason, when he the libel, and the depositions, and if he found that Mr. Kenrick had applied for a could say that he entertained the slightest criminal information against the alleged doubt of the innocence of Franks, he libeller, he looked very anxiously for the should, indeed, look upon him with contradiction which his affidavits might wonder. The slab had been lying as contain to the libel. What was the sub-worthless in a ditch, and in its dirty state it stance of the charge brought against Mr. was found, not in the possession of Franks,

but merely upon his premises. There was that it was unjust to produce them against not the slightest evidence on the depo- Kenrick, because he had had no opporsitions that Franks had ever seen the tunity of answering them, and they were, slab. If Franks had seen it, he had evi- therefore, ex parte. But, omitting the dently esteemed it a matter of so little affidavits that had been filed in answer to value, that he had left it exposed to the Kenrick's, these last themselves became view of Kenrick's men, who lived in his ex parte. Mr. Kenrick had nothing to neighbourhood. Thus this respectable complain of in the mode of bringing forman, the father of seven or eight children, ward this case. It was the most unfounded was committed to gaol upon evidence in-charge that was ever made, and the House sufficient to have committed the most dis- had a right to inquire into the motives. honest character in the world. It did not It was the province of common sense to require the slightest knowledge of law-it look for some extraordinary motive in the only required the exercise of common conduct of an individual, so contrary to sense-to determine, that there was no his duties and station in society, and to case against Franks. The learned coun- his means of information. What was the sel had said, "God forbid that any undue motive imputed to Mr. Kenrick, in the influence should have been exercised by articles which appeared in the Morning Mr. Kenrick over the mind of the magis Chronicle? That he had violated his trates who committed Franks!" But it public functions, and had availed himself. was clear that, when a judge of the land of his station, in order, unjustly, to discame to swear before a magistrate against possess Franks of his freehold. It was a poor man, he did come with a degree of not denied that Mr. Kenrick looked to authority that a magistrate might find it the consequences of his proceedings, and difficult to resist. It had been stated by that he calculated they would dispossess Mr. Burgess, that he had committed Franks of his freehold; but he had stated Franks to gaol with considerable regret. that his motives were only to get rid of Mr. Burgess having committed him, he a bad neighbour. It would be well to would say, that nothing but the influence inquire whether this was the real motive of a judge could have induced a magis- for such extraordinary conduct; and, if trate to commit a man upon such a charge. this turned out to be a mere pretence, the Mr. Kenrick said, "My own carter saw inference against Mr. Kenrick would be Franks putting this slab upon his premi- plain. In order to show that this was not ses;" that is to say, it was resting against his object-that it was a mere pretence, a rabbit-hutch, where it had been placed it would only be necessary to refer to Mr. by one of the children. Contrast this Kenrick's own conduct. Mr. Kenrick, case with that of Canfor. In reference to in order to establish that he wished to get that case, he wished that counsel were rid of Franks, solely because he was a allowed to address juries in cases of felony. bad character, proceeded to state what In the case to which he alluded, there the character of Franks was. The chawas a valuable article found in the pos- racter of Franks was highly important in session of the brother of Mr. Kenrick's estimating the motives by which Mr. bailiff, but Mr. Kenrick had refused to in- Kenrick was actuated. Mr. Kenrick had quire into the loss of this valuable sheep, felt the necessity of making out something although it had been traced into the pos- against Franks. It had been stated, that session of the prisoner [hear, hear!]. a bloody knife, wrapped in some_paper, These two cases ought to be taken to- had been found, belonging to Franks; gether; and, when the House found Mr. from which he wished it to be inferred, Kenrick's conduct so different in the one that Franks had been guilty of stealing a case, from what it was in the other, it sheep, and of which he had not been even would excite the strongest suspicion that accused and, for which no affidavit had some improper motive did actuate Mr. been filed against him. This appeared in Kenrick in this most unjust prosecution Franks's letter to Collett, which appeared against Franks. He must be allowed to in the Stamford News. Collett attributed observe, that the affidavits from which he it to the author, Mr. Kenrick, excepting was quoting were solely the affidavits that Mr. Drakard had made a few alterawhich Kenrick had produced, in order to tions to the extent of admitting the direct obtain his rule for a criminal information. charge of felony. It was to be observed There had been several others filed in that these attacks were going on whilst answer to these, but it had been argued, the Morning Chronicle was receiving

[666 small sums of money for Franks, and when they acquainted me with the cirpublic compassion was excited in his cumstance, and I directed application to favour. The insertion of Kenrick's letter a neighbouring justice for a searchin the Stamford News was at this precise warrant, in the execution of which, all the time, and had a tendency to check the articles were found in a box, in the bedcompassion and bounty of the public. room of Franks and his wife, under their The House had a right to discover these clothes; the magistrate requested my circumstances by a judicial and inquisi- interference with the parties, on account torial inquiry. They had a right to ex- of the tender age of the girl, to take their pect an explanation from Mr. Kenrick. things again, and drop any prosecution. Mr. Collett might have been called to This was before the late act, giving a have produced the letter. Kenrick might power to prosecute the abettors, had have disavowed it when it was shown to passed." Thus an imputed offence of him by Mr. James. To-day, the defence a child ten years of age was brought was, not that he did not send the letter forward many years after, when she was with an intention of its being published, a young woman in respectable service, so but that he was goaded to do so by the as to cite her character before the public, observations which were daily appearing injuring her reputation and feelings, in the Morning Chronicle. This excuse merely because she happened to be the was not satisfactory to him. When a daughter of a poor man, against whom a gentleman was called upon to vindicate Welch judge happened to make an unhis character, if he offered no evidence founded accusation. As to the fact of on the subject, it was quite clear that he the articles being found under the clothes had nothing to offer. The letter was in Franks's room, the child slept in the evidently intended by Kenrick for pub- room with her parents, and the clothes lication; for, if Collett could have proved were found in a deal box in her bed. So that it was delivered to him only for pri- far Kenrick's case was disproved; but vate information, Kenrick would have the most malignant part of the assertion required him to have given such evidence. was, that "this was before the late act The absence of all evidence on the sub- giving a power to prosecute abettors;" ject made it quite clear that the letter was as much as to say, that Franks was an written for insertion in that paper. If abettor, and would have been prosecuted Kenrick knew any thing of the bloody as such [hear, hear !]. This would have knife, he ought to have sworn it in his been proved, had it been true, when he affidavit; for all depended on the cha- moved, upon affidavits, for an information racter of Franks. So far from swearing before the court of King's-bench. The any thing against him, he only states, in inference was, therefore, plain. the letter to Collett, that, "When I first House was bound to interfere, when it came to my present residence, I found was so important for Mr. Kenrick to Franks in the employ of persons who were justify what he had stated in his letter to preparing my house for my reception. I Collett.-Well, next came the statement received hints of his misconduct which ex- of the killing of the sheep and, because, cited my suspicions; and finding them well forsooth, a bloody knife and a piece of founded, I dismissed him." This was rather paper were found in a particular spot, a queer way of dealing with the character the unfortunate Franks was held to be of any human being, particularly as he guilty. Would the House for a moment had an opportunity of swearing to any entertain a belief that an individual was particular fact. He then went on to state to be charged and confined to a prison one of the most cruel things done by one upon such grounds? Again. it was said man to another. He said "I had, or that Franks had for ten years been in rather my wife had, sent one of his the habit of nightly depredations in his daughters to school, and she was employed neighbourhood; but not the slightest at needle-work, which occasioned her to proof was brought forward in support have access to the house; various articles of this assertion, and therefore he had, were missing; lace, stockings, clothes, he conceived, an undoubted right to silver-handled scissors, &c. were missing, say, that the assertion was unfounded. belonging principally to the house-keeper, This had been repeatedly asserted in the and much jealousy and suspicion was oc- Morning Chronicle; and that journal justly casioned amongst my servants, till they set forth, in contradiction to the stateall agreed on suspecting Franks's daughter, ment, the very excellent character given

The