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

t 74;

~'-=~

sort of person who was unfit to be intrnited nith the powers which '
even formerly belonged to Magistrates, and which, by later Acts,
were considerably augmented. perhaps unduly augmented. The
Right Hon. Gentleman had stated that Cantor might have been in
in a state cf extreme irritation—that the blood was running through
the knees of his breeches. That exact condition he was not very
well acquainted with, or whether travelling might have produced
that removal of the skin which left Cantor blending at the knees ;
but he took it for granted that at least he was very much chafed
when he came before Mr. Kera-sh. When he goes in seatli of his
ram, and does not find him in the condition which he had reason to
expect, being almost sure of his identity, asks for his fleece, with a
view to obtaining confirmstion of his adapiciona ; but what did
. Beale do ? he aid, that Cantor should have neither the ram or the
fleece, or should be gratified with any information or satisfaction on
the subject. He then mat naturally came to the nearest Magis-
trate to obtain a search warrant. He went to Mr. Kenrick, and de.
mantling what he had a right to expect, he received for answer,
that he should get what would answer as well as a search warrant,
and a note wrs given to hint, addressed to Beale. That certainly
might have answered as well, and might have succeeded in an
ordinary case, but he, Mr. Tierney, was entirely unable
to comprehend why Cantor had not been examined upon oath.
lie (Mr. Tierney) did not mean to say but Mr. Kenrick had been
quite right in sending for Beale, to see what be had to say
for himself, before he issued a search-warrant, had it not been
for the peculiar circumstances of that' case. He had followed a
practice not unusual among Magistrates. and had sent for Beale,
a man, in favour of whose character testimony had been borne
by a Noble Lord in that House. He (Mr. Kenrick) summoned
Beale before him, for the purpose of ascertaining what the real
facts of the case were. But however good the character of Beale
might be, his conduct as to the ram was most extraordinary.
He lost a rani with a mark on its rump, and seeing that ram of
Cantor's with a mark on its side, he thought that it would suit
hint well enough, and took possession of it accordingly. He
freely admitted that none but a man very well acquainted with a
sheep could know it after it was shorn, but Cantor asked to have
the fleece shown to him, that he might remove from his mind any
uncertainty as to the identity of the ram, but Beale refused to let
him see the fleece, or to give up the rant ; and in such circumstances,
what remained for Cantor to do but to apply to the nearest Ma..
gistratc for aaearch-warrant. Accordingly he went to Mr. Kenrick,
front whom lie got a note to Beale, who disregarded the application
entirely, and refused to attend the Magistrate. In that situation of
affairs Cantor. wen to another Magistrate,M r. Burgess,and he observ-
ing the customary etiquette bct ween Magistrates declined interfering.
He then had recourse to Mr. Kenrick. and at his house he 'taw the
butler George Adams, from whom he received for answer, that
Mr.Kenrick would interfere no farther, sad have nothing more to
do with the transaction. It was strange that in the proceedings
before that House Mr, Kcarick had cot.* tempted to contradict
that part of Cantor's seatetnent, and he (Mr. Tierney) had a right
-to infer from that circumstance that that was a fact Which could not
be contradicted ; therefore it was to be assumed that he had at that
part of the affair completely washed his hands out of the whole
transaction. lie would put a case—suppose a gentleman had lost
a piece of plate, and suppose he had reason to suspect some indi-
vidual of having purloined it, and that he went to that person, and
having asked to see the plate in order that might be able to iden-
tify it, by seeing his arms engraved thereon, and then received for
answer that he should not be permitted to look at it„ what would
remain for hint to do but to make application to the nearest
trate for immediate assistance, lest the engraving of his arms should
he rubbed out. Should a Magistrate in such a case have conducted
himself as Mr. Kenrick had done? Should he, without any de-'
position on oath, have issued a summons, and, on that summons
being disregarded, was the complainant then to be told that the
alagmtrate would interfere no further? On the occasion of the re.
ference, Cantor's only object appeared to be to convince the referees
that the ram really was his. At that stage it was extraordinary
that the whole of Mr. Kenrick's conduct underwent a change ; as
(Motor cooled he grew hot, and seemed particularly incensed against
Canfor, because, when the arbitration was over, he, to convince Mr.
Kenrick of the justice of his cause, brought hint the fleece. In cuch a
cue Canfor might have gone home from the arbitration, but he, under
the influence of a very creditable feeling, went for the purpose of
convincing the Magistrate that his claim to the ram was founded in
truth and justice. He went to show him that he had been before
two referees, Nash and Ede, and that they had sanctioned his
claim. With every possible disposition to speak of Mr. Kenrick
with respect, he must say that he could not bring himself to believe
that the reasons fur Mr. Kenrick's conduct, as contained in his
statement, were founded in fact ; nos could he ever lose sight of
the circumstance that throughout the whole of the transaction they
bad to deal with a man not of ordinary information on matters of
law, but a Judge, whom they had a right to presume was well ac.
quainted with the duties which he was called upon to discharge.
For what purpose the fleece had been detained the House was only
left to conjecture, and Mr. Kenrick had hesitated to produce
Nash and Ede, the referees, and his servant Adams, who could
have been able to cast some light upon the transaction. His con.
duct throughout the whole of the second interview with Canfor had
been extremely rash and highly blameworthy ; he appointed Adams
special constable, to enforce the delivery of the fleece and note ;
Cantor refused to deliver them to a person not legally authorised.
Mr. Kenrick, in consequence of this refusal, despatched his set.
vent for Batchelor, the parish constable, and Canfor immediately,
and without violence, consented tive up possession of the fleece
and note, the latter f' which, thou it was studiously kept in the
back-ground by hlr. Kenrick, see the principal object through-
out. If the note had not been what Mr. Kenrick was desirous of
obtaining, in what manner could Cantor's conduct be explained,
who, on the entrance of the constable, held out his pocket and told
him to take the note ? Farther, he would ask, what had become
of the fleece ? There was no evidence to show what use had been
made of it. In consequence of the violence and false imprisonment
to which he had been subjected, Cantor brought an action against
Mr. Kenrick, which had not indeed been trice. for this reason,
because Mr. Kenrick did not wish it to be tried; at least his Coun-
sel had not permitted it to come to an issue, and in doing so they
had only exercised a sound discretion, and he thought Mr. Ken.
rick should feel much obliged to them for the course they had
adopted. Mr. KentieVeguilt had, to fact, bolo acknowledged by
his legal advisers ebnsehting to permit a verdict to be recorded!
against him, with costs and a tine of .5/. Much had been said
against the conduct of Canfor, but be thought unjustly; the in.,
formation he had originally given had been confirmed and sub-
stantiated. The quation was, would the Committee shut its eyes
upon a transaction of such a nature, on the ground stated by the
lion. Gentleman (Mr. Peel), that it was a case unworthy the inter-
ference of the liouse ? He wished to know what circumstances
could warrant the interference of that House in the case of a Ma-
gistrate, if false imprisonment and illegal violence did not? This
was not the only offence Ale. Kenrick had committed in his ma.
gisterial capacity; a circumstance had occurred, where a man
(Franks) was accused of stealing from him a piece of timber, value
Is., and imprisoned in consequence, and let ow of prison on a par.
titular condition. The Hon. Gentleman said it was not the busi.
neat of the House to determine upon the question, but he (Mr.
Tierney) thought differently. Here was a Magistrate convicted of
a breach of the peace, which he should have maintained, and of
false imprisonment;; he had acknowledged, by submitting to a
verdict, that he had acted improperly, and Hon. Members did not
attempt to vindicate, but only to extenuate his conduct. Under
such circumstances, he (Mr. Tierney) thought it the duty of his
Majesty's Ministers to advise the Lord Chancellor to remove Mr.
Kenrick from the situation, the duties of which he was so incom-
petent to fulfil. He had never read or heard of a case more calcu.
lated to excite suspicion and disgust ; and he felt persuaded no man
could be less fitted to exercise in an adequate manner the power+,
and discharge the duties of a Magistrate, than the individual in
question. Whether the motion of the lion. and Learned Gentle.
man (Mr. Denman) was the right way to come at the conduct com-
plained of, and adequately punish it, he admitted might be matter
of doubt with some Hon. Members; but,. for his part, he saw
nothing in the Resolutions of his Learned Friend at all objection-
able, or contrary to his opinion and view of the case. lie bore no
to hlr;Kenrick, and, in fact, knew nothing about him,
never having had any communication with him. He was free to
admit the question of interference with the conduct of Magistrates
was one of great delicacy, and that charge, which were often easily
made were exceedingly difficult of refutation. On this principle, he
had himself at different times declined to present petitions which he
thought were not borne out or substantiated by facts, and he would
not countenance or encourage the putting forth of statements of a
prejudicial or ex-parte nature to the country, because such a pro.
cording would be an act of injustice to the parties concerned. But,
in the present instance, he thought the case had been fully made
out, and it was important it should receive the consideration from
the House which was equally due to justice and the good opinion it
waddesirable for the Government to maintain.

Blr. Secretary CANNING—The charge brought against Mr.
Kenrick was neither sufficiently weighty nor sufficiently proved to
warrant the proceeding proposed by the Hon. and Learned Gentle.
man. There was nothing more erroneous than to suppose that if
the House were not disposed to join in a vote of censure it must
therefore concede its applause. The question was, whether or not a
case existed or had been made out, to prove that the highest, last,
and most transcendent power of Parliament should be exercised
upon this occasion, and if such a case had not been clearly proved,
as he was convinced it was not, he must object to any intermediate
course calculated to brand the individual In question with such a
grave and weighty imputation Ha would not follow the Hon.
Gentle Man through the several details of the subject. With regard
to himself, be professed the most entire and perfect unacquaintsnce
with Mr. Kenrick, he had never exchanged a single word with that
gentleman, and therefore could not be liable to the accusation of
favour or partiality ; but confining himself to the incidents of the I
ease, he was free to admit the impression upon his mind was, that
the extent of blame Mr. Kenrick was liable to, was for a discredit.
able and highly culpable want of temper manifested in the course of
the second interview between him and Canfor. With respect to
Mr. Kenrick's conduct in ?dosing to grant a search warrant, he
thought that charge bad been long ago given up, and relinquished
as entirely untenable, till tlae lion. Gentleman who had just sat
down had revived it.

Mr. TIERNEY did not impute blame to Mr. Kenrick for re.
fusing to issue a search warrant, but ter not investigating whether
it was necessary to do so or not.
Mr. Secretary CANNING resumed—With regard to the accu-
sation of the suppression of a charge of felony, no biaire was im-
putable to Mr. Kenrick. Gentlemen within the House had stated,
that they would have acted precisely in the same way, if similarly
situated. In the second interview, he repeated his acknowledg-
ment of the misconduct of Mr. Kenrick, and his regret that he
had so suffered the violence of his temper to overcame him, but
he thought the Committee bound to bring the charge and punish.'
ment together, and see that the latter did not surpass the extent
lof the termer. But he asked, was this the case with regard to the
punishment proposed to be inflicted on Mr. Kenrick? was there a
just proportion between the degree of culpability and censure, or
was a man on account of a loss of temper to be disgraced by being
removed from the bench, and was such a proof of human infirmity
to be estimated as an instance of guilt ? He thought not, and that
when the crime and punishment were compared, it must be allowed,