The Sun.
London, England, 1825-06-29 00:00:00

which sheep found their way to Westwood Common, near
the farm "of Beale ; and how, therefore, cold it he argued
that Beale had feloniously become possessed of these sheep,
merely because they had strayed towards his farm ? It
was not explained to Mr. Kenrick that Canfor claimed
the ram as his property: Mr. Kenrick thought it more
a matter of civil charge than of. criminal proceeding ; and
knowing the character of Beale, he did not grant a search
warrant against Beale, whom he knew to. be a respectable man.
Tho Right.-Hon. Member here proceeded to read several of the
answers of Cantor, as to whether he preferred a claim to the
fleece of the ram, which, upon being hard pressed, he answered
in the negative. But to other questions of the same
nature he answered differently, and he admitted that Beale
preferred a claim to the ownership of the fleece. Under such
circumstances,- then, he asked if Itlr. Kenrick had acted right,
and he (Mr. Peel) world say, that he had most properly con-
ducted himself. Magistrates were not lightly to violate the
rights and liberties of the subject, and in this case, if there was
any thing culpable, it was the non-interference of Mr. Kenrick.
-He admitted also, with the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, that
the Magistracy should be above all feelings of anger or irrita-
tion in the discharge of their public- duty, but few men could
bear to be thwarted, insulted, and provoked, merely because
they did not grant any request which they might believe to be
unnecessarily or impertinently made to them.' Corruption on
the part of Mr. Kenrick was altogether out of the question—
and taking the evidence of Canfor as the basis of any other
charge-against Mr. Kenrick, what did it in reality, amount to?
Here was a case of disputed property ; the accuser was unknown
to Mr. Kenrick ; the very Christian name of Beale was also
-unknown to him ; and even from a trifle of such a nature, the
Committee would be able to see that Mr. Kenrick could have
no -motive for denying that justice to Canfor to which he thought
himself, however erroneously, entitled. Mr. Kenrick thought
the matter one of a civil nature—a mere contest as to property;
and who, so thinking—what Magistrate, so believing, but
would have acted as Mr. Kenrick had ; tione,• and referred the
matter in dispute to the arbitration of the friends of the litigant
parties -? The case having arrived at thatstage, the partiesagreed
to the award of the referees ; but some subsequent damage was:
admitted by Mr. Kenrick, and his Counsel, with the consent of
Cantor's Counsel, bad agreed to a compromiseeand there the
matter should have ended.. But Canfor was dissatisfied e he
complained of the small amount of the compensation, but why
was Mr. Kenrick to blamefor that ? Mr. Kenrick in his :a-
-w davit denied Any previous knowledge of the compromise,
.but
having been made on his behalf, he yielded as became him.—
Was the House then to be called on for any further interfer-
ence ? .He denied that they were; and he was sure the Com-
mittee would coincide with him in fhrming that opinion. He
did not give Canfor the credit which Honourable Members
were inclined to do, for the purity of his motives in bringing
his, case before the House. .1f he was actuated by any
,wish
for the fair and impartial administration of justice, why
had he slept over the accusation for five or six months, and
allow - the Session -to come to a close before calling upon
'arliament to investigate it? But the real question •which
came before the Committee was, whether or not such a case
had been made -sufficient to bear out the proposition of the
Hon. and Learned Member. He again repeated .that no
adequate.reasons had been atated to call for the interference of
the House. They ought to be cautious how they dealt with
.ceses.which affected the character and usefulness of a Magi-
strate.
It would be as discreditable for them to .pasts over in
silence charges which might betaised against the judicial con-
duct
of a Magistrate, as rashly to call upon the Crown to e-xer-
cime the power of diemission. Unless a case of injustice was
fully and satisfactorily-made out, the House, ought not to in-
terfere with the independence of the Magistracy. lint the pro-
position of the *Honourable and Learned *Gentleman called
upon the committee to enter into the extra judicial parts of his
conduct, and to apportion to these a certain degree of censure.
To declare that the conduct of ellrhKenrick was illegal, .arbi-
trary, and oppressive, without following up that censure by en
'address to the rown, would be-inconsistent; and if the incon-
sistency did not stand in the way, it was by far too severe. He
felt it his duty, therefore, seeing that corrupt motives could not
be imputed to Mr.'Kenrick, and that the Committee had come
to a totally different decision, to move the following-Resolution ;
" That the Committee:havingheard the evidence in support of
the ellegaions contained in the petition of Martin Money Can•
for, and heard Counsel in behalf of Mr. Kenrick, they do not
think it necessary to recommend to the House the institution of
any further proceedings with reference to the judicial character
Kenrmck.".
:The Resolution .having been put, by- the. Chairma- of, the
Committee,
Mr. _TIERN-EY rose and said, that he came to an entirely
different conclusion on the case which had been submitted -to.
the Committee, from that of the Right Hon. Gentlemen. He,
directly. .disapproved of the -conduct of Mr. Kearick ; and he
thought the House would lower itself in .the estimation of the
public, if some step was not taken to express its sense of his
outrageous conduct, and to protect the King's subjects against
his farther administration of justice. The . question -was not
whether Canfor should not receive some atonement -for the
effects of that conduct; but:whether the public should not be
secured against the possibility of being injured by him—
( Hear !)—for any Magistrate who had acted as lie had done
ought not-certainly to be entrusted with such a vast extent of
discretion as belonged to one only of the offices widely Mr.
Kenrick held. The case had been divided into two parts; the
firsfripplied to Mr. Kenrick's refusal of a search-warrant, and
the other to Isis subsequent conduct when he imprisoned Canfor
for refusing to give up the fleece at his command. The Hon.
Gentleman wished to prove corrupt conduct 'on the part of
Kenrick in ;clueing the search-warrant. He (Mr. Tierney) did ,
not make any such charge against him. Whether his temper
was not under his own controul, or whether he labourediender
a want of judgment, or whatever were his motives to the acts
.charged against hiM, was not of great consequence. The Hon.
Gentleman said that Canfor had travelled 500 milei in quest of
his ram, aye, until the very blood came out at his knees. He did
not know exactly what that phrase meant ; perhaps it was meant
to be taken in a metaphorical sense only ; or, to explain' the
vulgar saying of a man ruffling his skin when"he rode far.--e(A
laugh.)—lt should be kept in mind when Canfor was imprison-
ed there was no charge against him, and nothing could be drawn
from the alleged intemperance in justification of-the step that
had been taken. But any one who had travelled 500 miles after
a rain might have the privilege of being a little intemperate.=.
Cantor lost his ram, and applied to Mr. Kenrick, as. a. Magis-
trate, in order to recover it; there, at least, was a prima facie
case sufficient to excuse one, who was not versed in the mysteries
of the law, in asking for such a writ, and many men, he. had no
doubt, were likely to fall into the same error. Mr. Kenrick said,
that as the case was not a felony, he could not grant the war-
rant sought for ; but he offered to give Canfor a note to the
person who was stated to have hat[ the beast in his possession, in
order that he might be brought before him. He (Mr. Tierney)
had not heard any reason why Canfor's deposition was not taken,
or why the charge was not substantiated on oath. He agreed.
- with the Right Lion. Gentleman that a search-warrant brought
the individual, who was the subiect of it, into an awkward no-
toriety with his neighbours, and held him up to suspicion. Any
man exercising a sound judgment ought to have seen what was
in the case, and_ to have set the applicant right. That was the
case in all the Police Offices in London, where the Magistrates
directed the parties who applied .to them to those steps which
might lead to the objects they haul in view. Had Mr. Kenrick
done this, he might have soon ascertained what truth there was
in the case. He (Mr. Tierney) knew nothing of Beale, bait a
'Noble Lord had given him an excellent character. But his ap-
propriation of the ram was singular enough.. Suppose that
Mr. Beale lost a ram which had e mark on its rump, and he
should discover another which was marked on the side, would
Mr. Beale be entitled to say, "My ram was marked, and,
.svnero then to be marvelled
very
naturally offered to
al-
though this is not mine, it will do as good as my own
(Laughter.)—After Beale had got time ram, the owner came to
him and said, " No, that is not your ram ; it is mine." Can-
fsarhOwinthoe flrdereetcoe ptorov Al re.
at that Canfor should grow angry—declare that he was ill-used
in the business, and go before a Magistrate in the neighbour-
hood ; and that, instead of obtaining a search-warrant, as he
expected, he should only get a note. Canfor then went to
e street
he
It sari,
d evlis
Beale with the note, and said the ram was his, but re-
fused to show the fleece. Canfor had strong cause to be
exesperated, for he had travelled far, and had had great regard
for the said rain. When he found Mr. Kenrick's note unsuc-
cessful, he went to Mr. Burgess, another Magistrate for time
county.; but when that Gentleman heard that his:brother had
acted in the affair, he refused to interfere in it. Next, Mr.
Canfor bent his steps again towards Mr. Kenrick's residence,
and was material to attend to what was said on that occasion
by Adams, who was a principal performer in the business, and
who acted the part of butler and- constable to Mr. Kenrick.—
(A laugh.)—That worthy asked Canfor what he came for—told
him to go about his business, that his master would have no
more to do with it. It was an extraordinary feature in the case,
that that fact, although explicitly stated in Cantor's petition,
had not been denied by Mr. Kenrick; and it was, therefore,
'MA too much to believe, that what was not denied could not be
denied.—(Hear, hear !)—Did the Right Honourable Gentle-
man mean to say that any Magistrate who sanctioned such a
proceeding ought to retain his high office ? Suppose that he
himself had a piece of plate stolen—that he knew where it
was to be found ; and that in his application to the Magi-
strate he said, " Shew me the plate and I will shew you my
arms engraved upon it. But if you do not shew it to me
immediately my arms will be rubbed off; and I will have no
opportunity of identifying my property." He asked any
Member of the Committee if they would hlve refused such
an application if they stood in .Mr. Kenrick's situation ?
Without taking his deposition, granting the search warrant,
or pursuing any steps which might lead to the recovery
ofthe property, AIL Kenrick, through his butler, told Canfor