Star.
London, England, 1825-06-29 00:00:00

MR. ICZNRICK.

Mr. TItEMAYNE presented a Petition from Mr.
Kenrick, praying for a postponement of the case of
Franks, the witnesses in which case had been ordered to
attend the house that night, as the Petitioner had not had time
either to consult with Counsel, or to prepare testimony to meet and
mantes-act the charge to be preferred agalust him.
Mr. D EN M AN said, that the Petition which had been
presented would not alter the course which he had
pointed out to the House to adopt respecting the case
of A. Ft ankh However, as it was not likely the House
would sit to-morrow, and as Mr. Kenrick complained
of not having had an opportunity of preparing wit-
nesses to meet the charge, and of consulting Counsel,
he would glad, ctinsent to let the business lie over until
Thursday. The witnesses on the part of the charge he
intended to prefer, were ready ; if it were thought pro-
per, he would propose that they be called in now, and
examined. In the part he would act, he wished to be
regulated by the feeling of the Howe. Every reason-
able indulgence ought to be shewn to Mr. Kenrick.—
But when he cons:tiered tl.e evidence which had been
heard on the cha•ge of Canfor, he must repeat his con-
viction of Mr. Kenrick's improper conduct. The note
sent to Beale was a very odd one, calling for the
fleece, in the nature of a command, on a charge of fe-1
lony, and that o as singular, to say the least. Such a
note was a strong attack upon Mr. Beale ; but Mr. Ken-
tick 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 order to be producestbefore
the Magistrate. When the note was received, Beale
laughed at it, and without once :hewing 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, and what was next done? Canfor
did not obtain the teem neither was be allowed to pro-
secute the offender; and, therefore, Canfor was placed
in a• worse situation than he ought to have been.—
Canfor went to another Magistrate, who refused to
act; and again he went to Mr. Kenrick, oho
again refused to act as a Magistrate ought to have
done. Magistrates should follow property wherever it
could be found ; and of course, a search warrant was
not to be granted as a matter of favour. Mr. Kenrick
should have taken the evidence upon oath, as leading
to the recovery of the lost property of Canfor. A re-
f fence was said to have taken place, as to whether
Beale or Canfor was mistaken as to the fleece ; but
this was not a matter of difference as to a civil right,
but as to the fair suspicion of a felony having been
committed or not by Beale, Mr. Kenrick thought he
was doing his duty by allowing a reference; but Mr.
Kenrick forgot that another question remained be-
hind, on which the justice of the country mainly de-
pended. The referees then met, and allowed the
fleece to Carafes:: Having in this way obtained it,
could anything be mote natural than that Canfor
should say to Mr. Kenrick, I am not wrong here--I
hayt the fl:ece, and I cannot have acted wrongly?—
Canfor produced the notes of the referees, giving the
fleece to him, while Mr. Kenricit added, in his defence,
that he did not believe the fleece to be the property of
Mr. Canfor. How Mr. Kenrick could-come to such a
conclusion, he (Mr. Denman) could not ascertain.—
'One thing, however, was certain, that Mr. Kenrick
must have been very confused upon the subject. Ano-
ther thing as clear was, that Mr. Keorick had been
guilty of a dereliction of his duty, although from what
causes, he (Mr. Denman) would not say ; but if the
object of Mr. Kenrick was to protect Mr. Beale, he
took a very erroneus method cf doing so. He (Mr.
Denman) wished the mildest course to be pursued in
this case, and he was quite sure that any other Magis-
trate having such a charge made against a respectable
neighbour, would have requested his neighbour to
come forward and clear himself—( Heat, bear).-..
It appeared to him that Mr. Kenrick neglected what he
owed to the public, by the conduct which he pursued
on that occasion. He did not think that Magistrates
should act in haste or irritation, and he thought Mr.
Kenrick reprehensible for not granting the search war-
rant, and for dismissing the case out of his hands alto-
gether. So much for the first part of the case; but
look at the sequel. Here was a man coming to look for
redress treated with outrage and made a prisoner I If
such conduct was . pursued by Magistrates in conse-
quence of imagined offence or wounded dignity, they
should be taught a different lesson. He imputed no
corruption to Mr.Kenrick, but he imputed to him haste,
irtitation, and an arbitrary feeling unsuited to the cha-
racter of a Magistrate.. Perhaps Cantor was importu-,
nate, but why nbt produce Adams, the butler of Mr.
Kenrick, and Mr. Beale, and the two at bitrators, to prove
it ? The constable-butler selected to bssau.. Canfor
was not called ; and so far Mr. Kent ick had proved his
own conviction. He (Me. Denman) heard it said there
could be no felony because the sheep were found upon
the common. He thought the light Hon. Secretary
would not adopt that argument, for felony consisted in
taking the property of another man, not from hii pre-
mises but from the high road. Well, then, the butler of
Mr. Kenrick was made a constable; he searched Mr.
Cantor under no pretence--the pretence was a mock-
ery; 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 put it into the hands of
the constable; in case a charge should be -übstantiatee
But Mr. Kenrick refused to hear the charge; be dis-
missed it in point of fact; and what could he mean by,
saying he wanted to keep the fleece as eviJence for the
purpose of a charge? Mr. Kentick could only so want
it in his character as Magistrate, whereas as Magistrate
he had dismissed the charge ! Here was a Alagistrate
-making his butler a special constable to outrage a suitor
for justice. Now, was that, he asked, to be tolerated ?
He thought that this case was one of very serious im-
portance, and if otherwise considered by the Magistracy
of this country, the matter was one of the greatest it*.
portance. He knew it was said that Mr. Keurick had
paid a compensation for this injury to Canfor. True,
he had ; but what answer was that to the House of
Commons? Certainly none. The ease was admitted to be
against him by the Counsel of Mr. Kenrick, but could it,
therefore, be said that die House of Commons should
not interfere,? if the House did not interfere, who would
be able to say that a person after such a conviction was,
fit to be continued as a Magistrate? Was such a per-

son to be continued in a high office-4o administer the
1aw...t0 be allowed for ever to *pipit* injustitter
oppression ? Suppose the eaMason case of a servant
sent to prison for stealing my plate, and sent to prison
for twelve meonths.Suppose,at the aspiration of that time,
he came again to ask to fill a similar situation is 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 placed in his old si-1
tostion ? For himself, he thought that the Judges and
the Magistrates were too much plowed beyond the reach of reap's-
sibility. He thought that no men, when they discharged their
duty, were More entitled to reverence and attachment I but wises
they acted otherwise, the same feeling should not be entertained is
their favour. He considered that the Government should have in-
terfered the moment they taw the Andy* hi the Newspaper& If
it were approved of by the House, and if Mr. Kenrick the
necessary for his due conskkratioo, he would consent to the
bearing the evidence on the part of the prosecution of the charges
now, and of permitting the evidence on the part of the dn•
fence to lie over to the nett Session. The Honourable Member
concluded by moving a set of Rep:dation*, to the effect that Mr.
Kenrick !Detracted Improperly—that he bad prevented a legalbin-
quiry—and that Mr. Kenrick's conduct, in Imprisoning MG Cam.
tor, was a gross abuse of his authority as a afasturate.
Mr. Secretary PEEL said that he would be the lea
man to attribute any improper motive to the Honour.
able and kartied Gentleman in bringing forward this
charge. The general manliness of his character was a
guarantee for his impartiality. For his own part, he
hal no peri'nal acquaintance-with- Mr. Kentick, and
all he wished was, that strict justice should be done to
Mr. Kentielt-Pand- the conatee.,-The que,tiom.forahe
Committee to decide was upon the Petiti.an of Canfor,
and the Report which 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 sympahy 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 indulged in against Mr. Kenrick. The sub-
ject was properly and naturally divided into two parts,
and he would follow them as they had been so stated.
He did net mean to shew that Mr. Kenrick had all
through the case acted with propriety—that would not
be 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
believed him to be actuated by the best possible feel-
ings. Mr. Beale, against whom the charge was made,
was known to be a very respectable man, _according to
the testimony of the Noble Lord opposite. However,'
Mr. Canfor had lost some sheep, which sheep found
their way to Westwood Common, near the farm of
Beale, and how, therefore,, could it be 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 a person whom he knew to be
a respectable man. The 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, atd he admitted that Beale pre.
ferred a claim to the ownership of the fleece. Under
such circumstances, then, he asked if Mr. Kenrick had
acted right? and he (Mr. Peel) would say, that he had
most properly conducted himself. Magistrates were
not lightly to violate the rights and liberties of the sub-
ject, and in this case, if there were anything culpable,
it was the non-Interference of Mr. Kenrick. He ad-
mitted also with the Honourable and Learned Gentle.
man, that Also,
Magistracy should be above all feelings'
of anger or irritation in the dis:harge 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 Cantor as the basis of any other
charge against Mr. Kenrick, what did it in reality
amount to? There was a case of disputed Eoperty.
The accuser was unknown to Mr. Kenrick. The very
christian name of Beale was also unknown to him, and
even for a trifle of such a nature, the Committee would
be able to see that Mr. Kenrick could have no mo-
tive 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.,
a mere trifle as to property ; and what Magistrate- se.
thinking, but would have acted as Mr. Kenrick did,
and have referred the matter to the arbitration of
the friends of the disputants ? The case having arrived
at that stage, the parties agreed to the award of the
referees—but some subsequent damage was admitted,
' by Mr. Kenrick, and his Counsel, with the consent of
Mr. Canfor's Counsel, had agreed to a compromise,
and there the matter should have ended. But Canfor
was dissatisfied with the comptomise, because of its,
small amount. Was Mr. Kenrick to blame for that?
Mr. Kenrick, in his affidavit, denied any previous
knowledge of the compromise, yet, after it was made,
be yielded as became him to yield. Ought this House
then to be called on to intelfere? He was sure the
Committee would decide otherwise. He did not give
Cantor the credit which many Members had done fair
the purity of his motives in bringing the case before
the House. If he was moved by a love of impartial
justice, why dal he allow it to sleep for six mqnths,
and wait till the dose of the Session ? The real slues.
Lion was, whether a case was made out to support the
Learned Gentleman's proposition ? He again repeated
—No. The House should be cautious in deliberating
on charges against Magistrates. A case of injustice
should be clestly made out before the Crown was called
on to interfere.. The proposition of the Learned Gen-
tleman touched upon extra-judicial proceedings, and
contained a censute against the Magistrate. It was in.
consistent to move such a censure, without asking the
Crown to dismiss Mr. Kenrick. This was far too se-
vere a procedure. As no corrupt motives could be ins.
puted to Mr. Kenrick, he should feel it his duty to
move the following resolution :
That the Committee having heard the evidence In support of
the allegations contained In the Petition of Martin Money Canfor,
and having heard Calmar' in behalf of Mr. Kenrick, they do nor
racy further. proceedings wish reference to the judicial character of
think it necessary to recommend to the House the institution of
Mr. Kenrick (clear).
Mr. TIERNEY said that he had come to an entirely
different conclusion on the case fiom that of the Right
Hun. Gentlemen. greatly disapproved of Mr. K:s
conduct, and the H ate would sink in public estima-
tion if it did not express its sense of the outrageousness
of that conduct, and intetf re to protect the administra-
tion of justice. The question was not alst ut any recom.
pence to Canfor, but whether Mr. Kenrick should in-
jure him with impunsty ? (hear, hear). Any Magistrate
ho had acted as Mr. Kentick had done, ought not to


; --

- . •

be entrusted with a large d'.--etiottary power. T'le
case had been divided into two parts. The fitateapplied
to the refusal of a search warrant, the f ecomi to the
false imprisonment of Cantor. He did not mean to im- '
pute corrupt *motives to Mr. Kenrick, nor did he think
it necessary to do so to justify the interference of the
House. His want of temper, or of capacity, were yea.
sous quite sufficient, and therefore the amettdment was
not one which he could agree to. He could not under-
stand why the evidence of Canfor had not been re-
ceived by Mr. Kenrick, nor could he understand why
Mr. Kenrick had not, at all events,-enquired into the
nature of the case. Ili had heard a very high character
of Mr:Beale which he was not disposed to controvert, but
he must say, that his conduct was at least very estrabr,
dinary. He lost a ram with a mark on the rump, and
in searching for it, he finds one with a mark on the side,
which he takes instead of his own—(Larghter).-Catl-
for claims this ram from Beale, and says, that if he sees
the fleece he can identify it. What says Beale? Why-that
that is the very reason he will not shew him the fleeces
If Canfor upon this got angry, was it to be wondered
at? Mr. Kenrick, he contended, had acted with the
grossest impropriety. By a subsequent reference,' Mr:
Beale was obliged to restore the sheep, and in order to
thew Mr. Kenrick that rte was justified in call'ng for
the warrant, he wanted to she him the fleece, upon
which Mr. Kenrick flies in a passion, swears in his butler
as a special constable, and gives Canfor into custody.
Canfor subsequently brOught his action, and Mr. Ken-
rick found it necessary to acknowledge his guilt by
compromising the action. Now he (Mr. Tierney) was
lof opinion that Cantor's motives in presentiug that
Petition had nothing to do with the question,—the
House bad only to consider of the propriety or impropriety of Mr.
Kenriek's conduct, and to proceed accordingly. It was altogether
pregnant with suspicion, and calculated to excite deep feelings ui
disgust and indignation.
Mr. Secretary CANNING agreed with the Right
Honourable Gentleman opposite (Mr. Tierney). that it
was the bounden duty of Parliament to interfere where
a case of corruption or partiality was substantiated
against a Judge, and to address the Crown fur his re'
moral ; but he did not feel that the gravity of the
charge against Mr. Kenrick called for the exercise of
this extreme power of Parliament. Nothing could'be
more unfair than the argument of the Honourable and
Learned Member (Mr. Denman), that if the House
' did not pass a vote of censure on the conduct of Mr.
Kenrick, it must in effect applaud and approve of
every part of it. If the House were not prepared to
adopt the extreme course of addressing the Crown for
the removal of Mr. Kenrick, the intermediate course
of branding him with imputations would have no other
effect than that of rendering him utterly powerless and
inefficient in his high office. By adopting such -a
course, the House would not act up to the duty Which
it owed to the country, and it would work a public
mischief instead of remedying a public wrong. He
should not follow the Right Hon. Gentleman through
all the details rf the case. He (Mr. C.) was, tterly
unacquainted with Mr. Kenrick, having never, to his
knowledge, been in the same room with him, and he
had, therefore, no kind of personal feeling in his favour;
but he must say, that he still retained the opinion
which he entertained on Friday—that this was one of
the most trumpery cases, on which it was attempted to
establish so grave a charge. that he had ever heard of.
The extent of blame to which Mi. Kenrick was liable
was, that of having exhibited a most indiscreet, and, in
some respects, discreditable want of temper on his•
second interview with Canfor. He thought the charge,
on the ground of Mr. Kenrick having refused the
search-warrant, had been given up, but on this subject
the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite seemed to differ,
not only from Gentlemen on his (Mr. C.'s) side of the
House, but from his own friends.
Mr. TIETtNEY said, he had distinctly stated that he imputed
no blame whatever to Mr. &crick for refusing the scarak,
warrant, bat for not taking steps to see whether the search-
warrant was neceuary.
Mr. Secretary CANNING said, it appeared then
that the charge of Mr. Kenrick having suppressed a
charge of felony was altogether abandoned. With re-
spect to his conduct on his second interview with CanfT,
it was impossible not to admit that Mr. Kenrick had
suffered his temper and discretion to be completely
overcome; and that, in that state of mind, he had acted
in a manner which could not be justified. It was bet
just, however, to bring the complaint and the punish.
anent together, and to consider how far the proposed
punishment was apportioned to Mr. Kenrick's admitted
offence. It was for the House to determine whether
Mr. Kenrick's loss of temper, with that most nnpro-
yoking of men, whose demeanour they had all wit-
nessed at the Bar of the Mouse, before him—it was for
the House to sty, whether with such a man as that
witness in front of him, his loss of temper was such a
proof of human infirmity. as called upon them to docim
him to the greatest disgrace which could be inflicted,
namely, an Address from the House of Commons to
the Crown, to remove him from the Bench of Justice ?
Taking the crime and the punishment together, he
could not, in his conscience, say that the House-could
inflict such a punishment for such an offence safely, of
consistently with the interests of the country. If they
stopped short of that punishment, he repeated, that
any intermediate course would only have the effect of
blasting the character of the man, and "rendering hint
unfit for the duties of his office. Under such ctreum-
stances he must say, without defending the conduct of
Mr. Kenrick, that he was not prepared to vote fur the
Resolutions of the Honourable and Learned Gentleman.
Ile doubted whether the moral faiths 'Which might be
imputable to persons filling judicial situations ought to
be visited with such grave political consequences, or
whether it would be expedient for the House of Com-
mons to scrutinize rigorously the private life even of
persons filling the highest offices of justice, or to insti-
tute inquiries into their moral conduct which Might
operate to the prejudice of those venerable characters?
Before the House could agree to the Resolutions of the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman, they must be ready to
go intoan inquiry into the private character and moral
conduct of the most venerable Magistrate: io the court,
try. Nothing, in fact, was proved against Mr. Kenrick,
except his indiscreet and indefensible conduct on his second Impte
view with Canfor; and it would be doing a public mischief Instead
of a public good, if the House were on that ground to address the
Crown fur his removal front the lknch.
Mr. H. SUMNER. expressed his astonishment at the
view tAken of the case by the Right_ Hon. Gentleman,
and at the severe strictures which had been passed upon
the tnanner in which the petitioner Canfor had given
his evidence at the bar. It should be recollected this
man was a p:rton of no education, and that he had
adopted a manner which he thought would evince his
independence, and about whiCh he might' eterwards
boast to his pot-companions, when he detailed to then*
his conduct at the bar of that House. But although he
(Mr. Holme Sumner) could find no other excuse for

.

/

that mane
- bound to si
deuce were
which be Ii
occurred.
inducement
been repress
of Canter's
question as
Public ; ant
did not alte
spect to the
which then
one fact w
rick might
not a good
he could t
had been tc
Kenricic had
[Mr. W. L 1
those into
of order].—
etas in which
was the simple
--(Hear).—Tl
Won that the re
Dlr. learlck
country with&
blr. DEIt
neighbour, a
of his charm
charge bein
quested him
he was him
tion. For t
Mr. genricl
"for into ens
warmth of
House had
was fit to be
tieuce with
would be in
he did not q
been realms,
Nottingham, b
airy even that
Sir FRA'
to be—a qv
sue in any
ther Mr. Kt
of character
filling two
and Judge
decidedly 1
the transact
to be preset.
seeing that
all the evidt
vary to his j
Learned Fri
the House I
tens the rest
own investi
ought to b
himself tge
what discre
course, he c
go all the
Friend (Mr.
nion chip,
course whi,
. vide could
obsery ing—
dismissi ng
he should-,
Mr. Thorpe
appeared to Ir
far lighter tha
very naiads&
Mr. CODA
deed, most en
coavbsee him I
bfr. DIN)
itr disraeteris
Masan wbo
soady to his
alea. resting a
Hesse on the

. bk.CROK
Youtick. but I
.atul el the ael
Idr. LOCK
losauvanisaie
Hien ceuki
without impel
Mr. WY!
in Mr. Ken
.clared that

ways given
the stricture
thought. th
.particularll
*base judg
fact of his
vere dealin
he doubted
cedant. .
'against bin
situation—
fsr a Gent
had beans
upon anott
rensain a 1

great /are
had been p
mix amnia
ft* aadresi
hat no an
aad be dwell
quire say t
Mr. H.
whom lb*

as being e
begged to

wai algal
beds
G bt mai
the Anvil-
Mr. MA I
wiles dim
Kenrick;
that het, hl
foresee kegs
Mr. WYI