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

sons of supsrier rank, and preferring a charge against one of their
equals. Upon such -occasions, when Gentlemen pushed a wit-
ness hard upon a -cross-examination, and he succeeded against
them, they who failed were the first -to exclaim that he was
impertitent, and should. not be encouraged. This was not
the way to treat an indifferent witness in a Court of Jus-
tice. He could . not, therefore, abandon Canfor to .the
charge of being discredited in his -own evidence. All the
statements made upon one side were admitted upon the other,
and the House had nothing to •do but to come- to a satisfac-
tory judgment. He then stated the circumstances of the case,
front the month of May, in which the ram was lost, com-
menting upon each, and maintaining the consistency of the
petitioner. Upon the subject of search warrants, the Learned
Gentleman said he had conversed with acting Magistrates, and
they wereof opinion they -should not begranted without a strong
• pima facie case, as they threw a strong imputation upon the
characters of those against whom they were issued. lie admitted
this to be true ; but surely a Magistrate should not dismiss the
charge altogether, nor allow the accused party to destroy all
proofs of the property. His duty upon such occasions should
be to act in a conciliatory manner, to cause as little pain as
possible, and secure truth without injuring reputation. Ile
considered that the note -was a very.odd one,,and calling for the
fleece, in the nature of a command, on a charge of felony was
singular to say the least. Such a note was a strong attack upon
Air. Beale; but Mr. Kenrick did not take a deposition, neither
did he issue a search warrant; but he said a constable might
go with him to demand the fleece, in ordered to be produced
I before the Magistrate. When the note was received, Beale
laughed at it, and without once shewing that he had a ram
so .like the other as that a mistake might have been made.—
But here the Magistrate 'had only the statement of Beale,
anti what was next done ? Canfor did not obtain the fleece,
neither was he allowed. to prosecute the offender; and there-
fore-Cantor was placed in a worse situation than lie ought to
have been. Cantor went to another Magistrate, who refused
to act; anti again he went to Mr. Kenrick, who again re-
fused to act 35
.a Magistrate ought to hare done. Magi-
strates should follow. property wherever it could be found.;
and •of course a search warrant was not to be granted as
a matter cl favour. Mr. s Kenrick should have taken
the evidence upon oath, as leading to the -recovery of the.
lost property of Canter. A reference was said to have taken
place, as to whether or Canfor was mistaken as to the
fleece; but this was. not _a matter of difference a; to a civil
right, but as to the feir suspicion of a felony having been corn-
mitted or not by l4leale. Mr, Kenrick thought he was doing
hi; duty by allowing a reference; but Mr. 'Kenrick forgot that
another question remained behind, on which the justice of the
country mainly.depended.. The referees then met, anti allow-
ed the fleece to Canfor. -Having in this way- obtained it, could
any thing he more natural than that Cantor should say to 111 r.
Kenrick, lam aot wrong here—l have the, fleece, and I cannot
have acted Wrongly. Canfor produced the-notes of the referees,
giving the fleece to him, while filraK. added, in his defence,
-that he did not believe the-fleece to be the-property of Mr. Can-
for! How 111 r. Kenrick could come to such a conclusion, he
• (31r..1)enman)-could not ascertain. -One thing, 'however, was
certain, that Mr. Kenrick must have been very confused upon
the subject. Another thing as clear was, that Alt."Kenrick had
been guilty of a ..dereliction of his duty, „although from what
cause be (Mr. Denman)-would not say; but if the object of Mr.
Kenrick was to protect Mr. Peale, he took a very debt:taus me-
thod of.doing so. • He (Mr.' Denman) wished the mildest course
to be pursued in this - case, and; he was quite sure that _any
•other.Magietrate having such a charge made against a reepec-
table neighbour, would have requested hia neighbour to-come,
forward and clear himsen.—(Hear, hear!)-It appeared to
him that Mr, Kenrick neglected .what he owed to the public,
' -by the conduct which he pursued on that occasion. lie-did
not think that Alaghneates should act in -haste or irritation,
and he thought Mr:- Kenrick reprehensible, not for not
granting the Smith 'Warrant, but for. dismissing the case
out of his bands altogether. So much for- the first part of the
case; but look at the sequel. Here was a man coining to
look for redress treated with outrage and' made a prisoner ! If
such conduct was pursued by the Magistrates in consequence
of imagined offence or wounded dignity, they should be taught
' a different - leaven. He imputed no • corruption to Mr. Ken-
rick, but he imputed to him haste, irritation, and an arbitrary
feeling, .unsuited to the -character of a Magistrate. Perhaps
( .•nfor was, importunate, hut why not produce Adams, the
butler of Mr. Kenrick, and Mr. Beale, and the two arbitrators,
to prove it ? The constable the butler selected to assault Canfor
was not called ; and so far Mr.- Kenrick had proved his own
conviction. • He (Mr. Denman) heard it said there could be no
felony, because the sheep was found upon the Common. He
thought the Right Honourable Secretary would not adopt that
argument, for felony consisted in taking the property of ano-
thee man, not from his premises, but from the high road
Well, then, the butler of Mr. Kenrick was made a constable—
he searched Mr. Canfor under no pretence— the pretence. was
a mockery ; but Mr. Kenrick said, " Because you- got the
fleece in consequence of an arbitration you shall still deliver 'it
up to me, because I wish to rat it into the hands of the con-
stable in case a charge should be substantiated." But Mr. K.
refused to hear the charge ; he dismissed it in point of fact, and
•what could he mean by saving he .wanted to keep the fleece as
evidence-for the purpose of a -charge ? Mr. Kenrick could only
'so Want it in his charaCter as. Megistrate,wheeeas as Magietrate
he had dismissed the charge! Here was a Magistrate making
his butler a special constable to outrage a, suitor for justiceea...
now was that, he asked, to be tolerated ? He thought that this
case was one of' Very serious importance, and if otherwise
considered .by the lq-agiYitracy of this country, the matter was
one of the greater importance. He knew it •wassaid that Mr.
'Kenrick had paid a -compensation for this injury to Canfor.
True he had ; but what amwer was that to the House of Com-
mons ? Certainly none. The case was admitted to be against
him by the Counsel of Mr. Kenrick; but could it therefore be
said that the House of Commons should not interfere ? If the
House did not interfere,' how would they be able to say that a
person after such a conviction was fit to be continued as a Ma-
gistrate ? IVas such teperson to be, continued in a high office
—to tilminister the law—tO, be allowed for ever to perpetuate
injustice or oppression? Suppose the common case of a ser-
vant convicted of stealing my plate, and sent to prison-for 12
months—su armee at the expiration of that time he came again to
ask to fill a similar situation as he held before, because of such
punishment—would the House say, because the servant suffered
the penalty of the,law, that he should therefore be replaced-
in
his old situathin ? For himself, he thought that the Judges
and the Magistrates were too much placed beyond the reach of
responsibility ; he thought that no men when they discharged
their duty were more entitled to reverence teed attachment ; but
when they acted otherwise, thesame feeling should not be en-
tertaihed in their favour. He considered that the Government
should have interfered the moment they saw the affidavits in
the newspapers. When the Government found that a
strate had been convicted of improper conduct, they shoal(' have
examined the case, and see if such a peraon should be any
longer CO7, timiefl ui the Conerniaion tOf the .Prance. The 'Go-
vernment loaded the Magistrates with extraordinary power,-
which increased with their irresponsibility. It was high time
that the House of Com Mons should interefere upon this subject.
With respect to the individual whose conduct was inculpated,
he never had toe honour of his friendship ; and therefore lie
had not violated any sentiments- of that nature. He harboured
no feelings of animosity towards, anti never wasa to his knoee-
ledge, until the present occasion, under the same roof with
him. .fle acted from a 'sense of public justice ; and it would be
deeply degrading to him if it could be supposed that he was
influenced by feelingsofany other description. It was his inten-
'lion to strbm it the following propositions to the House :
• " That this Committee is of opinion, that the allegations
contained in the petition of Martin Money Canfor have been
substantially proved.•
" That the said petitioner preferred his complaint to Wil-
ram Kenrick, Esq., one of the Magistrates for the county of
Surrey, relative to the loss of a ram, and required a search-
warrant, to recovertitte,sam as well as its fleece, both of which
were, in the possession of William Beale, the brother of the
said William Kenriclee bailiff, but that the said William
Kenrick refused to grant a search-svarrant, or to take the de-
positions of the petitioner-
That the said William Kenrick, in this respect, appears
to have neglected his duty as a Magistrate, in not inquiring
into facts of a suspicious character ;• and that his subsequent
conduct, in causing ti.e said petitioner to be arrested, and
commanding and 'ordering him to be-searched, was illegal, ar-
bitrary,-and oppressivenaad a gross abuse of his authority as a
Magistrate."
The first resolution having been read—
Mr. PEEL said that he would' be the last man to impute
any improper motive to the Hen. and Learned Gentleman in
bringing forward this charge. The general manliness of his
character was a guarantee for his impartiality. For his own
part he had no personal acqUaintance with Air. Kenrick, and
all he wished was that strict justice should be done to Mr. Ken-
rick and to the country. The question for the Committee to
decide was upon the petition of Canfor, and as to what report
they were bOund to make upon the evidence in support of, it.
The case of Franks should not be mixed up with the question.
He was sure that no sympathy upon the part of Magistrates
would induce them to forget their duty in .coming to a deci-
sion ; nor that personal feeling. on other subjects, would be in-
' Bulged in against Mr. Kenrick. The subject was
properly
and naturally divided into two parts, and he would follow
them, as they had been so stated. He did not wish to shew
that Mr. Kenrick had all through the case acted with propriety ;
that would not he necessary ; but he meant to shew, that the
conduct of Mr. Kenrick did not call for the interference of the
House. He acquitted him of all corruption, and he believie,ed
him to be actuated by the beat possible feelings. Mr. Bea
against whom the charge was made, was- known to be a very
Lreto.rpdecotapbploesimte.an,Haoewcoervderin,gmtor. tchane tfesortihmaodnylosot fsottnhe N e
shoecbe
pl,