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

that he would have nothing to do Li the business.—(clear !)_
What ought Mr. Canfor to have- done next ? He thought it
was hard to lose his ram in that way, but he was obliged to
sit down contented under the conduct of the Magistrate. The*
came the proposal to refer the matter to Mr. Butler and Ur.
Nash. Cantor proved by the fleece that the ram belonged to
him, and there the business might have rested if Mr. Kenrick
had not become irritated, just as Canfor became composed.—
Canfor, however, out of mere kindness, went to Mr. Kenrick,
to show him the award of the referees, and the fleece, in order
to convince him that he had good grounds for applying to Idris
for the search-warrant. Now, what reception did he meet with
for this praise-worthy conduct ? Mr. Kenrick flew into a
passion, and said, " Oh ! you dog, are you come back ; I will
give you into the charge of a special constable." Such was
the answer of the calm and temperate Mr. Kenrick to the
Statement of Canfor ! It seemed that Mr. Kenrick wished to
get possession of the note which he had given to Canfor, and
demanded it from him with considerable warmth. Mr. Kenrick
could not under Stand how the fleece could have been got with-
1-out hint. But at any rate lie was determined to have it for
some special purpose. What reasons could induce Mr. Ken-
rick to insist upon this demand ? He could not be ignorant of
the law which applied to a case such as that which he'had been
called on to administer. He was a Judge—(Hear, hear )and must know the difference between a felony and a civil ac-
tion. If he had a proper purpose in view, he must produce
Adams and. the referees at the bar of the House, in order to
explain it. Mr. Kenrick put entirely in the back-ground the
searching for the note. When the constable of the parish came,
Mr. Kenrick said to him (turning towards Canfor)_" There
is your prisoner ; do your duty, and search him for the note."
Canfor was accordingly searched, and the note was taken out
of his pocket-book. The fleece was also taken, at the command
of Mr. Kenrick, the witness refusing to depart until (to use his
own phrase) he saw it scaled up. Upon this Canfor brought an
action for false imprisonment. The Right Hon. Gentleman
on the mention of this fact, echoed " Yes—but it was never
tried." Why ? Because Mr. Kenrick did rot wish it to be
tried. When the case came on, his Counsel, Mr. Gurney,
made an apology to the Court.
Mr. I'EEL said across the table that that was done without
the authority of Mr. Kenrick.
, Mr. TIERNEY—WeII, then, Mr. Kenrick was much
obliged to his Counsel for doing so.--(Laughter.)—After hav-
ing thus acknowledged his guilt (for the apology amounted to
this), he agreed to pay a penalty of 51. and all costs. Such was
the information which came before the Committee, in a Satis-
factory and sufficient way. and the question was, would the
House of Commons wilfully shut their eyes to it? The Right
lion. Gentleman• had addressed himself to a question which
was not before the House, for he (Mr. Tierney) could not think
that he meant to defend the acts which Mr. Kehricic was proved
to have committed, on the ground that they were the conse-
quences of infirmity and irritability of temper. Would she
payment of 150/. to Franks satisfy the House for Mr. Kenriek'a
imprisoning that' person two months in gaol fbr a piece of
of timber not worth a shilling ?—(Hear !)--It was not the
fault of the Right Honourable Gentleman that Mr. Kenrick
did not quit the premises.—(:s laugh.)—ln what situation did
Mr. -Kenrick stand? A civil action had been brought
against him for a breach of the peace and false imprisonment ;
and since he had acknowledged that the act was improper.
it was the imperative duty of his Majesty's Ministers to
take steps fOr removing him from his present situation by an
Address to the Crown. Ile confessed that he had never read a
case which excited in his mind more suspicion and disgust.—
What could be more hurtful to the Magistrate than to pasty
over the acts of, which Mr. Kenrick had been found guilty.—
He (Mr. Tierney) was not actuated in any thing he had said
by any towards Mr. Kenrick. Ile had not conversed
with him in the course of his life, and he always felt reluctant
to interfere in the exercise of the judicial power of the Magis-
trates ; for in such cases, it was easier to make than to rebut
allegations. He had often refused to present petitions to the •
House from parties who considered themselves aggrieved in this
respect. When the petition was printed, the statements went
abroad in the country, and cast serious imputations upon the
subject cf the inquiry. The Right Hon. Gent. concluded by
imploring the House to take the case under their deliberate cons.
sideration, as it involved no less a • question than the fair and
impartial administration of justice.—t Hear, hear !)
Mr. CANNING' said, he fully concurred in the last senti-
ment of his Right Hon. 'Friend, but before the Hou-se carne to
the conclusion which- he would pass upon them, they would_
do well to consider whether the case was of so grave a nature as
to justify the course proposed by the Learned Gentleman.—'
Nothing could be more untrue, than that because Ministers.
were not prepared to go all lengths in censuring' the conduct et
Mr. Kenrick, they therefore admired and approved of it. The
question was, whether the case called upon the House to
exercise that highest and most transcendent power which
Parliament unquestionably possessed ; and if it did not (as be
thought it did not), whether they should pursue an interme-
diate course which would brand Mr. Kenrick with an imputa-
tion which would render him powerless in the high office he
held, and. thus produce a great public mischief. Witt-teat
going into the details of the case, he was decidedly of opin 0
that neither of these courses could be adopted. lie had no
acquaintance with Mr. Kenrick ; he believed he had never
been in the same room with him; he was sure he had never
exchanged a word with him; he had no partiality in his
favour, and yet he must say that the case appeared to'hins
the most trumpery upon which any so grave a conclusion could
be called for. The whole extent to which it reached proved
only that Mr. Kenrick had been guilty of a discreditable aril
culpable want of temper in his interview with this man (Can-
for). With respect to the search-warrant, he had thought all
that part of the case was given up, until the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman had this evening revived it.
Mr. TIERNEY explained that he did not blame Mr. Ken'
rick for that part of his conduct. ,
Mr. CANNlNG—Well,•then, since that part of the charges
that_overt act, was abandoned, all that remained was Mr.
Kenrick's conduct on the second interview. That he ha,t
suffered his temper and his discretion to be overcome, coal°
not be denied, nor could it be justified ; but the complain
and provocation must be taken together. Was the loss 01
temper in an interview with that most unprovoking of man'
kind, who had lately appeared at the bar of that House, 9°
great a crime that it could only be sufficiently punished by ref
moving the person who had committed it from his office 0
1‘
,1.
judge ? He (Mr. C.) could . not in his conscience say that
deserved any such punishment; and as that was thennly one
which could be inflicted consistently with the interests of thee
country, he would not consent to adopt that other measure, ea;
unjust as it was inconsistent with those interests, of blasting tis
character of the person accused, and yet leaving him in the Pol
session of his office. This was the short view which he 113(
, taken of the subject, and without going any further into it, dei
termined hint not 'to vote for the resolutions of the Hon. o',
Learned Gentleman, which would be nugatory unless tile'
were followed up by an address to his Majesty, 'which the Hoeg;
and Learned Gentleman did riot contemplate. It could not ut
denied that flying into a pasSion—the only charge proved againse
Mr. Kenrick—was a moral fault; but the House of Contro°ll;
must be cautious in inquiring into the private life of pera°°""
because it might happen that the most venerable characters!
and whose public conduct was without reproach, might he Wen
.
to similar imputations in their pjivate habits. The Right 1-I°,!la
Gentleman concluded by repeating his opinion that nothing 1;,
been proved which could justify the House in passing upon 14
Kenrick the censures contained in the resolutions of the .H 0"
and Learned Gentleman.
Mr. H. SUMNER expressed his astonishmene at the Y3elf,
taken of the case by the Right Hon. Gentleman, and at then .
vere strictures which had beep passed upon the manner li:
which the petitioner Canfor had given his evidence at the bs.,
It should be recollected that this man was a person of tto edht
cation, and that lie had adopted a manner which be thong,
would evince his independency, and about which he hsifo.
afterwards boast to his pot-companions, when he detail e,
them his conduct at the bar of that house. But although_„."
(Mr. Holing Sumner) could find no other excuse for that hawe
ner than the man's vulgarity, he.felt himself bound to state ttive
the House that the facts in his evidence were the same, Wit
any alteration, as those which had detailed to him,tell (11',/xe
after they had occurred. .This consistency (while there *O.
so many inducements to vary, if' he had been the rode
lte had been represented to be) convinced him (Mr. 007 es
Sumner) of Cafifor's veracity. Those who treated the
sent question as trifling did injustice to the interests aid
public ; and the statements as to Mr. Kenrick's character. ta,
not alter the nature of the transaction. And with respectas
the question of character, that was a point upon which tea
might be two opinions. He would state one fact which 11.0
upon that question: Mr. Kenrick might be a good f ,the_r°o
family, but he was not a good neighbour. He recollectedci
instance, he could tell the House, in which a 'piece of lasto to
ecoa
been to be let; and where the conduct of Mr. Kenrick had '1
Any thing rather than'neighbourly. ' 14
Mr. W. LAMB submitted, that allusions so person ot
those into which the Honourable Member was going Were e
of order.
t•on
Mr. H. SUMNER protested that in that ease the ques`leiter
character was one which ought o he left out of the case -ftet
gether. He would say, farther, no more than this—that. °teal•
so much as had appeared before the House—after the i_e° bail
perate conduct of which had been proved that Mr. Kenrick
been guilty of—it was impossible to leave him, without f°
vestigation, in the discharge of duties, which it 'was iruP°s9,l;ooo
without such investigation, in the public eye, he could coo"
to exercise without suspicion. neile
Mr. DENISON said that, as Mr. Kenrick's near f
ho
boar, all he knew of that gentleman was in favottr of
character. On the first night of the-present .charge'
brought forward, Mr. Kenrick had requested. 11i 0006
Denison) tO state to the House,. that he, was Will'''.