The order of the day being read, for taking into consideration the petition of Martin Money Canfor, presented on the 14th [see p. 1143], the 1351 House resolved itself into a committee of the whole House, Mr. R. Gordon in the Chair. Mr. Gurney and Mr. Bolland appeared at the bar, as counsel for Mr. Kenrick.
§ Mr. Denman. —
In the course of last summer, were you a farmer at Charlwood in Surrey?— Yes.
Did you, in the June of that year, lose any sheep that were feeding on Charlwood Common?—I lost some in May. About twenty.
Was there a ram among them?—There was.
Did you commence a search after the sheep you had lost?—Yes; I searched a whole week.
Did you find them at length?—Yes; at a place called Westwood Common. [The witness was informed that he must not refer to the printed petition in his hand, in the answers he gave to the questions proposed to him.]
How far is that from Charlwood Common?—It may be five, or it may be six miles.
Did you find the ram among the rest?—No. I found six ewes and five lambs.
Were they marked in any particular manner?—They were. It was a mark I had made up with a composition of gas-tar, gas-pitch, and salt grease.
Is that an unusual mode of marking sheep?—Very.
Did you ever know sheep so marked before?—Never.
Did you find the ram afterwards?—Oh! yes.
Was that marked in the same manner?—Yes.
Where did you find the ram?—In a fold along with some more sheep in a field that belonged to a man of the name of Beale or his mother, I cannot say which.
When you found the ram, had it the fleece On, or had it been shorn?—It was shorn.
Was it shorn when you lost it?-No.
Did you see William Beale after you had found your ram in his fold?—Yes.
Did you tell him any thing about your ram?—I asked him where he got that ram from; he was some time before he would tell me; at last I said, "Did not you have this ram from Westwood Common?" and he admitted that he had. I asked him whether he had sold his wool; he said, he had not; I asked him whether he would produce the fleece off that ram, he said, no.
Did you require him to give up possession of the ram?—Yes.
Did he do so?—No.
Did he say how he had come by it?—He said he had taken it off Westwood Common, thinking it was his. I asked him whether it had not got a black smudge mark on the right side.
Was that a description of the mark upon your ram?—It was; and he said it had.
Were any of his sheep marked in that 1352 manner?—Oh no nor any body's else but mine.
In consequence of his not giving up this ram, did you ask to see the fleece?—I was sure of the ram, and I asked after the fleece.
Did he give you the fleece?—No, not then.
He refused?—Oh yes.
In consequence of that, did you inquire for the magistrate?—Yes, I did. I was referred to one Mr. Kenrick.
Did you know Mr. Kenrick before?—No.
Do you remember what day it was that you went to his house?—On a Monday morning.
Do you recollect the day of the month?— No. I know it was in June. It might be one, or it might be two o'clock, but country clocks vary so.
Whom did you see there?—I saw a gentleman there; I found afterwards that his name was Adams.
Was he Mr. Kenrick's butler?—Yes.
Did you tell him what you name about?—I told him I wanted to see the magistrate; I had forgotten the name. He said, "What do you want?" I told him I wanted to see the magistrate; he said, "What is your business?" then I thought he was the magistrate, so I began to tell, and last of all I asked him whether his name was Kenrick? he said, "Oh, no, it was not, he was only a servant;" then I refused to say any more to him, and told him I wanted to see the magistrate; he said, "it was past the hour of Mr. Kenrick's doing business." I said, "Very well;" then he told me if I told him, perhaps he could assist me.
Did you tell him?—Yes, then.
Did you tell him the same as you have now told this House, about the loss of the sheep and the marks?—I was beginning to tell him; then when I found it was not Mr. Kenrick, I stopped.
Did you afterwards, when he said you might tell him, tell him the particulars?—Yes.
That being done, were you shown into Mr. Kenrick's room?—I was, by Adams.
Did you then tell Mr. Kenrick what you have stated now?—I told him I came there for a search warrant, that I had lost a great many sheep, and I had rode 500 miles to find them, and I had traced one into the possession of a man of the name of Beale; he asked me a great many questions how I could prove it to be mine, and how I could prove he had taken it; I told him I had got a chain of evidence to prove that he took it, and that I had seen the ram and could swear to it, and that all I wanted was a search warrant to search for the fleece, in order that I might prove where I had the ram; that I might prove it was my property by the man of whom I bought it. I told him the man would not give up the property, and that I wanted a search warrant for the fleece.
Upon that application being made, did Mr. Kenrick proceed to write any thing?—Yes.
While he was writing, did Adams say any thing to him?—Adams left the room and he came in with a paper in his land. Kenrick 1353 said, "what have you got there?" Adams said, "Sir, it is the form of a search warrant." Mr. Kenrick says, "this note that I am writing, will answer the same purpose." I told him I did not come there for a note, that I came there for a search warrant, and if I lost my property through that note, I certainly should look to him afterwards; that I should go to my solicitor, Mr. Burt, at Reigate, and from there we must go to another magistrate.
What did Mr. Kenrick say to that?—He flew into a great passion. He ordered me to leave the room, and if I did not go he would send for a constable to take me out. When I said I must go to my solicitor, "do not talk to me about solicitors, or I will have nothing to do with it." I told him then I was very sorry to think he should be offended at what I had said, for that I had rode till the blood nearly came through the knees of my breeches from riding so far; that I was sorry he should be offended, and I begged him then to go on his own way. Then he finished this bit of paper.
Have you got it here?—I do not know that I have.
He gave you a bit of paper?—Yes, he gave it to Adams.
When he had written that note, did he say any thing about the Christian name of Beale?—Yes, he asked the christian name of Beale, and Adams says, "the name of ours is James, and the one charged, I think, is William."
When you hail got your note, was any thing said about a constable?—Mr. Kenrick told Adams to give it to me, and that I might take a constable with me; and then, before the note was put into my hands, he said, "Oh ! a constable is unnecessary, you may take it yourself."
Did you then take the note to W. Beale?— Yes; I took it to his mother's house.
Did you find him there?—No, I did not; then, as I could not find him, I made sure of the ram. I put him into the grounds of Mr. Nash, the next field to his, may be next but one or so. After I had taken the ram, in going home I stopped to bait my horse at a public house, and while I was there who should come in but this Beale. I offered him the note; I said, "here a note from Mr. Kenrick," he said he would have nothing to do with it. I asked him if he would produce the fleece, he told me he would not; I said, I thought Mr. Kenrick was a great friend of his.
Did he then refuse to give up the fleece?— Yes; I told him I had taken the ram, and he swore that he would go and take it again, for I never should have the ram, and that he never would produce the fleece; that was said in the presence of two or three people.
After that, did you go before Mr. Burgess, another magistrate?—This was the Monday that I was along with Mr. Kenrick; on the Tuesday I we it off to another magistrate.
How near does he live to Mr. Kenrick?—I suppose about three miles.
You went home that night?—Yes; I saw 1354 Beale at Reigate on the Tuesday, and I asked him if he had brought the fleece with him, before a person of the name of Cutler; he said, he had not, nor he never would; Mr. Cutler said, Canfor, this looks bad, do not drop the business.
Did you go to Mr. Burgess?—Yes.
Did you apply to him for a warrant?—I did.
Did he grant you one?-No.
Did he give you any reason for declining to act?—He was going on very well till I told him I had a note from Mr. Kenrick.
What did he say then?— He said, oh! he was very sorry I had not come to him in the first place; if I had, he would have attended to it, but it would not be behaving like a gentleman if he interfered, as Mr. Kenrick had charged a man with felony.
The note mentioned the charge of felony, did it?—It did; when he saw that he refused to go on, he said it was a charge of felony, and therefore it would not be handsome in him to go on with the business; that it would not be behaving like a gentleman; I told him that I had been riding 500 miles. He recommended me to go to Mr. Kenrick again.
Did you go there again?—Yes; on the Wednesday morning.
Did you see Adams again?—No; I saw Beale first, in the grounds along with his brother, Kenrick's bailiff.
You saw the two brothers together in Mr. Kenrick's grounds?—Yes.
Did you tell him what you came for?—Yes; I asked Beale whether he had brought the fleece; he said, no; and he snapped his fingers and said, go on, I will see it out with you, and made a kind of laugh.
Did you go to Mr. Kenrick's house?—Yes.
Did you then see Adams again?—I did. He asked me what I came for; and I told him I came about this business of Beale's. He said he had orders from Mr. Kenrick, that if I came, he was to say I was to go about my business. Then he said, "Mr. Beale has been here, and says, it is to be left to Mr. Nash and Mr. Cutler to settle." I told him that I knew nothing about it. He says, "will you call Beale;" I told him I did not know that I had any business to run backwards and forwards; that I had had riding about enough; he said, "I wish you would go and call him."
Did Beale say it was to be left to reference?—He came down then to Adams and me; and Adams says, "how is this Beale?" Beale says, " Mr. Nash told me, in coming home from market, Canfor would it to him."
Who is Nash?—He is a land agent of Kenrick's I believe.
What passed more?—Beale said, he would produce the fleece; I said, "then if you will produce the fleece, I will leave it to any body, I do not care who it is; all I want is the production of the fleece;" then he agreed to produce it before Mr. Joseph Nash. Then he 1355 brought a friend of his, by the name of Ede, who lives close by him,
Did Beale produce the fleece for Nash and Ede to look at?—Yes.,
Did you produce another fleece of your sheep?—No, I produced a mark off another sheep, by their desire.
Did they decide whose fleece it was? They said it was mine.
Were they long in deciding it?—Not after I produced that; but they made me go home, all through such roads up to the horse's belly, but directly that the fleece was out of the sack, before it was unwound, I said, "there is my mark here;" one of them says, "you must be wrong;" when it was unwound, in the room of the mark being in its proper place, this mark was pulled all to pieces, and put into the band, which is the thing they tie round the fleece, I saw my mark outside, and said "that is my mark."
Did you go home to fetch another mark?—They said it was impossible for them to decide, though it looked queer, without their seeing another.
Did you go and fetch another?—I went part of the way, and then I sent a lad to cut another off.
Did you produce that which was cut off?—Yes.
And they decided the fleece was yours? Yes. They wrote two notes, saying they were satisfied the sample fetched by me, corresponded with the fleece produced, by Beale.
When they had done this, did you go to Mr. Kenrick's with the fleece, the ram, and those notes?—I did.
Were you shown into the room?.—I took those notes of Nash and Ede with me, and I saw Adams again. Adams asked, "Well, what's the matter now?" I told him I was come to prove to Mr. Kenrick that I had not applied there without a just cause, and that I had brought two notes to shew him; and I gave him the two notes; he took them away somewhere, and in the course, perhaps, of five minutes or more, he comes and says, Canfor, you are wanted," and then away I go with him.
Where to?—Down into Kenrick's house; then, when I got into the parlour, he said to Adams, "Shut the door:" he said, first of all,
"Where is that note I wrote;" I told him it was in my pocket; he says, "then deliver it up:" I said, "Sir, I will give you a copy of it, or I will let you have it to look at, if you will give it me back again."
What did he say?—He said, "Adams, shut the door."
Did Adams do so?—He did. Then he said, "Now Adams, I appoint you a special constable, you take and search him for the note."
Did Adams proceed to search you?—He came up to me for to search me, but I would not be searched by him, and I told Mr. Kenrick, at his peril to search me.
What was done upon that?—,Then there I was. 1356 How came you to remain there?—Because Adams was at the door, and Kenrick went and shut down the window. Then Kenrick wanted the note, and I said, no, I should keep it. Then he says to Adams, "Send for the constable of the parish." After a good long while I was there, and by and by a constable came; but, however, while they were gone for the constable, I wanted a pen and ink to take a copy of it, but Mr. Kenrick would not let me have a pen and ink. Paper I had got in my pocket, but he would not let me have pen and ink. When the constable came into the room, Mr. Kenrick says, "Constable, there is your prisoner," pointing to me; so the man looked and stared some little time, and did not know what to make of it. Mr. Kenrick says, in a tremendous passion. "Constable, do your duty, take and search him, for a note he has got." He told me it was Batchelor; and I asked him whether he was the constable of the parish, and he said he was, but I do not believe he shewed me his staff.
Did you say any thing when he said he was, the constable?—No; I said if it is so, it must be so.
Did you give back the note?—No, he took it from me; he unbuttoned me; and I held out my pocket-book, and he selected this note from amongst different papers in my pocket. When he had got the note, Mr. Kenrick said, "Now, constable, take that fleece".
Did he take it?—He did. Then he said I might go about my business, but I would not go until the fleece was sealed up. I would not go until the constable gave me a note, saying he had searched me by order of Mr. Kenrick; then I left directly.
Did you bring an action afterwards against Mr. Kenrick for this?—Yes, directly.
It stood for trial at the last assizes for Surrey?—It did.
Was there a compromise made?—There was.
Five pounds damages, and all costs?—All expenses that I had been at, as well as all loss I had been at in the business, was to be made good to me.
Those damages and costs have been paid you?—No; not my expenses that I had been at in the loss of time.
Not the expense of following up the sheep?—No; nor travelling to town, and being away from home; I had a stack of hay that was worth more than a 100l.completely spoiled, all through Kenrick.
How long were you from home searching for these sheep?—Altogether a fortnight; it was a week before I got information.
Who was it that proposed the compromise at the assizes?—I cannot say; I was out of court at the time, and I know nothing about it. I believe Mr. Gurney can give the information, if it is required.
Cross-examined by Mr. Gurney.
When you applied to Mr. Kenrick for a 1357 search warrant, did he state that he understood Beale to be a farmer of good character, and not likely either to steal a sheep or make away with the fleece?—No, certainly not.
When you urged to have a search warrant, are you sure Mr. Kenrick did not say he did not think it a case for a search warrant?—To be sure he did not; he said that what he was writing would answer the same purpose, or words to that affect.
Before you presented a petition to this House, did you threaten Mr. Kenrick if more money was not paid you, you would do any thing to him?—Never.
Did you threaten him that you would "tackle" him if he did not?—Very likely; I wrote to the attorneys to know whether it was Mr. Kenrick's desire or by his wish, they had settled it so that I should be at the loss of 150l.
Mr. Kenrick paid the costs?—I do not know what he paid.
Do not you know that he paid above 130l. in costs?—He might, but I know nothing of that.
You made a further demand?—Certainly, according to the agreement.
Did you nit threaten, that if Mr. Kenrick would not pay that further demand, you would tackle him again?—I said, that if I was to be at that loss I should tackle Mr. Kenrick again.
Examined by the Committee.
§ By Mr. Denman.
—Is that the note given you by Mr. Kenrick?—[The same being shewn to the witness.]—This is the note that Mr. Kenrick gave to me to take to Beale.
Read it?—These are to request, you will deliver to the bearer, the fleece of a sheep, admitted to have been taken by you from Westwood, in order that it may be produced in evidence before me on a charge of felony, or bring it with you to my house, or show cause why you should not do so. WM. KENRICK."
"To William Beale."
§ By Mr. Peel ,
—Was the ram, when you found it, in an open fold?—In an open field; it was inclosed in a fold.
The fold was open?—It was not covered in at the top. It was along with his sheep in a fold, as that might be, with hurdles all round.
Any person passing by might at once see the ram?—Yes, if they would ride up to that part of the field.
What reason had you for going to that particular field?—I had got some information where to go; I had a man that saw Beale take it off the common.
Did you mention that to Mr. Kenrick?—I told him that I had got a chain of evidence that I could bring it home to him; and that it was as clear as noon day.
How can you say, that no persons mark their sheep with this composition but yourself?— There never was in that part of the country.
Can you undertake to say that?—I will go so far as to defy you to bring any one forward to say, that any one marked so; it was not a 1358 regular thing at all. But I can state how I came to mark them so, if you wish to know about it; when I had these twenty sheep sent home to my house, we had not got any of our regular pitch mark in the house; they were Welch sheep, nineteen of them; they are given to stray. I said, I will mark them so that if they do go away I shall be sure to know them again, and I mixed up this composition for those sheep, because I had not any other regular composition.
It was a composition you had heard of before as a good composition?—No, it came into my head; it was a thing that never came into any person's head before; taking gas-tar and gas-pitch and salt grease to mark sheep with.
Were the other sheep that were in the fold with the ram, shorn also?—They were all shorn.
How many sheep do you think there were?—I cannot say, whether there was fifty or sixty or seventy; all the notice I took was of that ram.
You found no other of your sheep there?—No.
Did you hear that the party who stole the ram, had found that ram singly?—I never heard that; only I saw a man that saw him take it away.
Did he catch it?—He and his man took it; I suppose he must have caught it, or he could not have taken it away.
How did he catch it?—I cannot say; the party who saw him take it away can explain that best.
What was the chain of evidence you had?—The man that saw him take the ram. The man's name was Hugget.
He told you that he saw Beale take the ram?"—Yes.
Did he tell you whether the ram was single or whether the others were with it?—I will tell you all about it: when I first got information of this sheep being at Westwood, away goes, and the roads were shocking bad. In going up Westwood-common I saw six sheep and five lambs of my sheep; I got a-top of a hill and saw a little house down in a hollow; I said I would go down there, that is a likely place to inquire, and so I went down; this was on the Sunday, about one o'clock. I saw a man, and asked him if he had seen any sheep marked with such and such marks; the man said yes, he had; there had been some lying about for a fortnight about the commons; I said, "Have you seen any thing of a ram among them, a South-down ram, a very handsome made one?" "Yes," says he, "I did, but that is gone, that Ram is gone." I said, "Gone!" "Yes," he said. I said, "Now, my friend, will you go along with me?" he said he was just going to dinner. I said, "I will pay you something better than getting your dinner;" the man said, well he would; then off we went, and when we got on to this common, "Now," says I, "my friend, if you see any sheep marked like the ram, point it out." 1359 I dare say there might be a hundred different marks, all manner of sorts on the common. I had not told him then I had found my sheep on the common; that I had found eleven sheep there. Well, we go along walking past one and past another, and by and by we came up to one, he said, "this sheep is marked like the ram." I did not say then it was mine; he goes a little further, and by and by he comes to another, and says, "this sheep is marked like the ram; " then says I, "those are my sheep; now who took the ram?" then he told me; that was exactly how I found it out.
What was the particular mark?—Nothing but a black smudged mark, no letters at all.
Did he describe the circumstances under which the ram was taken, whether it was by night?—No, in the day time I think; in the evening.
And he told you he saw Beale take it away?—Yes, or he could not have told me where to go for it; that he saw the ram in his possession.
Did he tell you that be saw Beale take the ram away?—He told me he saw him with the ram in a string.
What was the value of the ram?—I would not have taken any money for him, for I had him on purpose to breed from; the value of him might be five and forty or fifty shillings.
You explained to Adams that Beale was the person whom you charged?—I told him that was the man by the name of Beale.
Did Adams know that Beale was the man you charged when he brought a search warrant to Mr. Kenrick?—I cannot say that.
By the Attorney General.
—Did you mention to Mr. Kenrick that you had seen a man of the name of Hugget, who had seen Beale lead away this ram from the common by a string?—Certainly not, he did not go into the detail of facts; I told him I had a chain of evidence; that I had clear proof he had taken my property; that I had been to his fold and I had seen the ram.
You did not state the chain of evidence or mention the name of Hugget?—I cannot say that I did; I do not know whether I knew the man's name then.
Did you tell Mr. Kenrick you had seen any man that had seen Beale lead away the sheep with a string?—I cannot say whether I did or not at that time; all. I can say is, that I told him I had a chain of evidence against the man.
You were satisfied, from the description Beale gave you of the mark, that it was your mark?—Certainly.
And you told Mr. Kenrick what the mark was?—Yes.
Did not Mr. Kenrick tell you, "Beale is a very respectable man, I have no doubt he will come when he is called for?—No, he did not."
Did he not tell you this was a subject for a civil action?—No such thing.
Did not Beale say that it was his sheep?—At first he did, and stuck to it. 1360 He said the first time that it was his ram?— Yes, and the second too.
Did you not tell Mr. Kenrick he insisted it was his ram?—I said he refused to produce the fleece.
Did you not tell Mr. Kenrick he said it was his ram?—Certainly, he claimed it.
And that he described the marks on the fleece just as you had described them?—I asked him whether the ram he took had not this particular mark, and he said it had, and that he thought it was his ram, and that somebody else had taken it, and marked it afresh.
That you told Mr. Kenrick?—I cannot say whether I did or not.
Did you not tell Mr. Kenrick, he claimed it as his ram?—No.
I thought you stated, that you had told Mr. Kenrick all which had passed between you and Beale?—No.
How came you, when applying for a search-warrant, not to tell him all which had passed?—He asked me a hundred and fifty questions, and I told him all he asked me.
He asked those questions for the purpose of determining whether it was your property or Beale's?—I do not know what was his reason; I told him I had evidence to prove it was mine, and that I could prove whom I bought it of.
Did you not tell him also, that Beale said it was his?—He said it was his; Beale said he took it through a mistake.
When did he tell you that; that was afterwards, was it not?—That he thought, at the time when I applied to him, that somebody had marked it a-fresh.
Did not he insist upon it as his property?— He said it was his.
Was it not referred to Mr. Nash, for the purpose of determining whose property it was?—Not by me; not till I was forced to it.
Who appointed Mr. Nash?—I believe Adams or Beale.
Who named Mr. Ede?-Who named Mr. Ede; this Beale brought him with him; but he was not named at all; his name was not mentioned at Kenrick's.
How came it to be referred to him?—When Beale went home to fetch this fleece, he brought a friend with him; and this friend turned out to be Mr. Joseph Ede.
It was referred to those two persons, to determine whose property it was.—It was referred, to see whether it was my fleece or not.
§ By Mr. Brougham.
—What did Hugget tell You he had seen Beale do with the seep?—That he had seen him take it.
You were understood to say, he had seen it with a string?—Yes.
Not that he had seen him take it, but that he had seen him with it?—That he had seen him go past a public-house.
He did not say he saw him take it off the common; but that he saw him pass a public-house?—Just so.
Did you see any of Beale's sheep?—Yes.
What had mark they?—Those I saw had no mark at all;they were sheared. 1361 Yours had no mark only a splash?—No, a kind of a smudge.
You have said, you told Mr. Beale when you had some conversation with him, that you believed Mr. Kenrick was a great friend of his?—Yes; I said to Beale, when I showed him the note; I to tendered him Mr. Kenrick's note and he refused to take it; I said "Beale, I consider Mr. Kenrick to be a great friend of yours, or you would have been in a very aukward situation."
What did Beale say to that?—He said he did not care a damn for Kenrick and me; but that he would never give up the fleece.
And he contended it was his own?—Yes.
And you told Mr. Kenrick that?—I did not see Mr. Kenrick after I got the note.
You saw him after you had seen Beale the first time, did not you?—Yes, after the Sunday"
On that Sunday Beale maintained the sheep to be his and the fleece to be his?—Yes.
And you told Mr. Kenrick that?—Yes.
That he said it was his, and he would not give it up?—Yes; and that I wanted a search warrant to search his premises as it was my property; if he had given it up, I should not have wanted to go to Mr. Kenrick's.
By Mr. M. A. Taylor.
—Did not Adams come into the room with a search-warrant which Adams had written out for Mr. Kenrick to sign?—Adams, left the room, and came in with a printed paper; Mr. Kenrick says, "What have you got there?" he said, "Sir, it is the form of a search-warrant;" Mr. Kenrick said, "this note I am writing will answer the purpose," or word; to that effect.
Did Adams, upon your stating that you wished for a search-warrant, give you any paper yourself to sign, stating the complaint? —No, he did not.
Did Mr. Kenrick ask you to sign any paper?—No, he did not.
Did you tell Mr. Kenrick you actually came for a search-warrant?—Certainly; I went there for nothing else.
That you came for a search-warrant against Beale?—Yes.
Then Adams brought in a printed form?—Yes.
It was then that Mr. Kenrick said a note would do as well?—Yes.
By Sir R. Wilson.
—After you had made Beale acquainted with your intention to charge him with a felony might he not have destroyed that mark by which you proved the felony, if he had been conscious of being guilty of theft?—He had destroyed it; I mean to say, he had pulled it all to pieces.
By the Solicitor-General.—You have said that Mr. Nash is land agent to Mr. Kenrick; is not he a very respectable farmer in that neighbourhood?—A very respectable man indeed.
Is he not generally employed as a referee on subjects arising between farmers and gentlemen in that neighbourhood?—It is the custom 1362 of that part of the country for Mr. Nash and Mr. Cutler generally to settle things.
After you had got the fleece of your ram, what was the occasion of going to Mr. Kenrick the last time?—To prove to him that I had not applied without a just cause before.
Having got your fleece and your ram, yon did not go the last time to Mr. Kenrick, to insult him? I did not.
I take for granted you did not say any thing to him flippant or rude in your mariner? —Not the least in the world.
It is not your habit to express yourself in that way?—As to habit, I express myself in the best way I can.
You have told us Mr. Kenrick got into a great passion; had you said any thing for the purpose of irritating Mr. Kenrick?—I said no more than this, that I would not be searched by Adams.
Before the search was proposed, had you, in language or in manner, done any thing to irritate Mr. Kenrick?—Never; there was not time; I did not expect I was going before Mr. Kenrick. I sent those notes in by Adams, and I had no more idea that I was going before Mr. Kenrick, than that I was coming to this House.
§ By Mr. Goulburn.
—How came you to have sheep on Westwood-common?—That I do not know, that is what I want to find out.
§ By Mr. Peel.
—When Beale produced the fleece, you had no doubt whatever it was the fleece of your ram?—I knew it was my fleece, he said it was from that ram.
He did not make any attempt whatever to bring forward any other fleece?— No, he only produced that.
§ By Mr. W. Lamb.
—How came you to petition the House of Commons upon this subject?—There was no other place I could apply to that I knew; I had done every thing; I had brought him to a court of justice, and he had pleaded guilty to the charge I had laid against him, and there was no other place where I could get protection; I did it to let the country see that though a man is poor, if he has got spirit and money, the great will be brought to justice as well as the poor.
Did no one advise you to take this course?—Not a single soul; for my determination always was, till such time as I had had redress made to me for the injury I had sustained, that I would follow Kenrick up.
Who wrote the petition you presented to the House?—My attorney, Messrs. Watson and Broughton of Falcon-square.
He drew up the petition according to your instructions, did he?—Certainly.
You are perfectly aware of the contents of that petition?—I am.
Are you aware that it is stated in that petition, that you presented it on account of the indignation you felt at the delay of justice?—Certainly.
Should you have presented that petition, if Mr. Kenrick had paid the demand, and the 1363 whole expenses after the affair at Kingston?—I cannot say but what I should; I never promised Mr. Kenrick that I would not, and that therefore remained with me.
Should you or not?—I think I should.
Still it is doubtful?—I should have considered it; I should not have dropt it easy; I should not have given it up easy.
Do you mean to say, that your presenting this petition is not entirely in consequence of his not having paid you your demand subsequent to that trial?—No, I deny that in toto.
Did you not say, that when Mr. Kenrick refused, you threatened that you would "tackle" him?—All I wanted to know was, whether it was through Mr. Kenrick's desire I was to be at the loss I was, and if it was Mr. Kenrick's desire, or leastwise, if his attorneys had acted according to his instructions, I certainly should tackle him again.
Subsequently to that you gave instructions to your attorney, in consequence of which that petition was prepared?—Then I beg to consider with myself that part why I was to tackle him.
In consequence of your considering how you were to tackle him, this petition was prepared?—Yes.
Therefore, if Mr. Kenrick had paid you the money, you would not have presented the petition?—That I cannot say; I never promised that yet; as for paying me, it was no more than what he was entitled to pay me.
How do you reconcile those two last answers, that in consequence of the money not being paid, you considered how you should tackle him, but that your presenting that petition had nothing to do with the nonpayment of the money?—No more it had; it had nothing to do with it.
§ By Mr. Brougham.
—Did you offer to make a deposition to Mr. Kenrick on oath?—I did. I told him I had seen the ram, and was come there to swear to it.
Did he refuse to examine you upon oath?—He did not say either way.
You never prosecuted Beale for a felony?—I could not. Mr. Kenrick had taken the evidence from me; I was obliged to promise the man that I would not prosecute him, to get the fleece from him.
It was the promise prevented it?—Yes.
§ By Mr. Peel.
—With respect to the compromise with Mr. Kenrick, was that by your directions?—No; Mr. Gurney can tell you all about that.—I was out of court; I knew nothing about it till I came in.
When you knew about it, were you dissatisfied with the amount you were to receive, under the compromise your counsel had made?—No; or I should not have agreed to it.
You agreed to receive 5l.?—Yes; and all my costs I had been put to was to be made good by him, that was my instructions to my counsel, or the case was to go on; Kenrick had said all along that he would ruin me; there- 1364 fore I said we will see whether you will or not.
What other situations does Mr. Kenrick hold?—He is a judge in Wales.
And that is one of the reasons for bringing this forward?—No, not particularly; that was to let it be seen whether he has done his duty as a magistrate.
What do you mean by this statement, "That the petitioner is induced to consider an investigation of this case more peculiarly important, from the circumstance of the said William Kenrick being one of his majesty's justices of the great session, in Wales?"—Well, I should think that Mr. Kenrick is no a fit man to hang a man if he goes on the way he did with me.
Yes; that if he administers justice in Wale; as he did in Surrey, I am sure I shall never go down to Wales for justice.
Your motive for bringing forward this is not that you are dissatisfied with Mr. Kenrick for withholding from you any sum you think yourself entitled to, but that a man who has so acted should be removed?—If he had acted according to his oath he was bound to support me, and I conceive he has done every thing he did against me; I believe, when he took his oath as a magistrate, he swore to do every thing just between man and man, and not to decide without hearing both parties; but I mean to say that he decided this without hearing any; that is, that he did not hear me in the way he should.
Had you any wish to prevent the detail of this in the public newspapers?—To prevent what?
To prevent the publication of this?—I never troubled my head with publications.
What did you mean by this statement, "That the petitioner disclaims all personal hostility to the said William Kenrick, which he submits has been sufficiently indicated in his desire by the compromise of the said action, to prevent a detail of the foregoing facts?—There would not be one man in a hundred that would have been so easy about the business as I was, not one man in a thousand; I have got no ill will against Mr. Kenrick.
Did you instruct the person who prepared this petition to draw those two paragraphs?—I directed him to draw up the petition, and let me see it; I then approved of it.
Did you know Beale before this happened?—No, I was quite a stranger in the country. I do not know that ever I heard of his name in my life.
By the Attorney-General.—With respect to the compromise which took place at the assizes, were the terms of that arranged between your counsel and the counsel for Mr. Kenrick?—I know nothing what the counsel has done, as I tell you; Mr. Gurney is the only one who, can tell you upon that business.
Were you present at that time?—Certainly, but what they did I do not know; they never 1365 told me what they wrote; I told my counsel what I should agree to and nothing else, and how they settled I do not know.
Who was your counsel?—Mr. Marryat.
You and Mr. Marryat conversed together upon the subject?—No; Mr. Thessiger I gave the instructions to.
He was also your counsel?—Yes.
Did you converse with him as to the terms on which you would settle this business?—Yes; I told him if I was to be at a farthing loss about this, the trial should go on. They first of all began to propose something about five-and-twenty pounds; when that was mentioned to me, I said I should have nothing to do with the matter; I shall go on, as Kenrick has said he will ruin me, I will see whether he shall ruin me or not.
You trusted the arrangement to your counsel?—Certainly
When was it you received the money?— I have received no money; my attorney has I believe. I think he said they had paid him the costs.
When had you first any conversation with your attorney as to the costs being paid?—Whether it was a month or a fortnight ago, or a week ago, I cannot say.
Did he not tell you that Kenrick had paid the costs?—I believe he did.
When was the time that he told you Kenrick had paid the costs?—I cannot tell.
Did you receive the 5l. damages?—My attorney has perhaps received it.
How soon after his telling you he had received the costs, did you direct him to draw up the petition?—I cannot say,
Do you not know where you gave him instructions for this petition, whether at your own house, or his?—I cannot say whether it was at my house, or his?—Most likely at the office.
When did you first propose yourself, before the assizes, to compromise this action with Mr. Kenrick?—Never.
You mean to say no offer of any kind was made till you got to the assizes?—Not on my part.
You have no reason to believe that your attorney made an offer of compromise to Mr. Kenrick, before the assizes?—Not to my knowledge.
Have you any reason to believe, that it was so from what you heard?—Never; I never did.
By Sir R. Wilson.
—You have stated that Mr. Kenrick had said, he would ruin you; on what authority is that stated?—It was common talk in the neighbourhood; and in fact it was said to my wife, and my wife was ill for six months through it, she was frightened.
§ By Mr. Denman.
—Were you told by your counsel or your attorney, after the compromise had been made, what the terms of it were?— I was not told at all, no further than my instructions to Mr. Thessiger was, that if I was to be at a farthing loss the business should go on. 1366 Were you told that the defendant's attorney consented to pay the costs, as between attorney and client, so that you were to be at no expense in the matter or in the cause?—Yes, after I came out of court.
Did you see the writing afterwards?—Yes.
What did you understand by being at no expense in the matter or the cause?—All the expense in the looking after the sheep, and going about [The witness was directed to withdraw].
The Counsel for Mr. Kenrick were asked in what way they proposed to proceed?—Mr. Gurney stated, that he proposed, in the first place, to put in an answer by Mr. Kenrick to the petition of Mr. Canfor. The Counsel was informed, that he might read the statement referred to by him as part of his Speech. Mr. Gurney then proceeded to read the paper. It purported to be the Petition of William. Kenrick of Betchworth, in the county of Surrey, esq. and set forth,
"That the petitioner, having perused the petition presented to the House by Mr. Martin Money Canfor, begs leave to state, that the petitioner is well known to be in the habit of seeing all persons on justice business till ten o'clock every morning, and after that hour (if at home) on any matters of urgency, but that his servant has instructions not to introduce any person after that hour till he has ascertained the business on which he came is urgent; that the petitioner's butler Adams having informed the petitioner that a man of the name of Canfor (whom the petitioner had never seen or heard of before) wanted a search-warrant, he directed that he should be admitted; Adams then introduced Canfor, and then left the room; Canfor then stated, as the ground of his application for such warrant, that he had lost several sheep from Charlwood Common, and amongst others, a ram, and that he had heard that Mr. Beale, of Reigate, had lately taken up a ram from Westwood-common, in the parish of Leigh (which parish adjoins Reigate and Charlwood); he had been to Mr. Beale's and seen the ram, which was then shorn and claimed it as his property, and that Beale stated that he had taken up the ram from off Westwood-common, it having strayed from his pasture, and refused to give it up or produce the fleece, insisting they were his own property; upon this representation the petitioner told Canfor, he thought it a case for a civil action, and not for a criminal proceeding, and declined to give him a search-warrant; Canfor then became very importunate, and used some intemperate language, saying that the petitioner did not know his business, and he would go to another magistrate; and said he would apply to Mr. Burgess, the magistrate at Reigate; upon which the petitioner told him to do so, and that the petitioner was sure, if the same statement was made to Mr. Burgess, he would not issue any search-warrant, that Canfor still continuing to press for a search-warrant, and stating, dint unless he 1367 could compel the production of the fleece, he should not be able to prove his property in the ram, and that he was apprehensive Beale would destroy it, the petitioner told him that Beale was the brother of the petitioner's bailiff, and that the petitioner was unacquainted with him, but understood that he was a respectable farmer, and a man of good character, and not likely to act in that way; that the petitioner would give him a letter in the nature of a summons, which he had no doubt would procure the fleece; Canfor then requested the petitioner to do so, and the petitioner accordingly proceeded to write the summons stated in Canfor's petition; while the petitioner was so doing, his servant (Adams) came into the room, and offered the petitioner a blank search-warrant; on which the petitioner said it was not a case which required a search-warrant, Adams then retired, and the petitioner proceeded to finish the letter or summons mentioned in Canfor's petition, which the petitioner delivered to Canfor, directing him to take a constable to serve it on Mr. Beale; but the petitioner has no recollection that he told him he might serve it himself; when the petitioner afterwards saw the summons he perceived he had inconsiderately described the charge as if it had been actually preferred before the petitioner, certainly implying thereby, the petitioner considered a felony had been actually committed, an idea never for a moment entertained by the petitioner, and the observations the petitioner made to Canfor decidedly prove it to have been most foreign to his mind, and he trusts as unequivocally show, that he wrote the letter to assist one neighbour to settle a dispute with another, and for no other purpose; after that summons had been served, Beale, as the petitioner was informed, came to his house and complained of it, and desired Adams to tell the petitioner the matter was referred to a neighbouring farmer; the petitioner desired him to be told there was no occasion for the petitioner to have any thing further to do with it; Canfor also afterwards came, as the petitioner heard, and met Beale before he had left the petitioner's premises, but the petitioner was not at home, and on that occasion he did not see either of them; the second time that the petitioner saw Canfor was, he believes, on the 17th of June; Adams introduced him, and then left the room; and Canfor then produced the fleece and two samples of wool, and two notes signed by Mr. Joseph Nash and Mr. Ede, stating that the samples were like the wool produced, with the view, as the petitioner understood, of satisfying the petitioner the fleece belonged to him (Canfor); but he petitioner was by no means convinced thereof; and from something that was said by him, which the petitioner does not distinctly recollect, he was induced to question him if he had obtained it by means of the petitioner's summons, when he said "Yes;" the petitioner asked, what he meant to do with it? he said, to take it home and keep it; the petitioner then asked 1368 if Mr. Beale consented to his so doing? he said he did not; the petition then desired him to leave the fleece with him for the purpose for which it had been obtained, viz. to secure the production of it as evidence, when wanted for that purpose; this he (Canfor) peremptorily and repeatedly refused to do; and thereupon the petitioner told him he must detain him (Canfor), for which detention the action mentioned in Canfor's petition was brought, and turned the key in the door, and rang the bell which Adams answered, and the petitioner desired him to detain Mr. Canfor until he gave up the fleece, and the letter, or summons; but the petitioner does not recollect, and thinks he did not order him to search him (Canfor) for the summons or letter; and the petitioner sent another servant for Batchelor, the constable; the petitioner cannot recollect, and firmly believes he did not at any time during his first or this interview with Canfor, speak in a high, menacing, or commanding tone, or that he was any way agitated, or in a passion; when Batchelor arrived, which he did in a few minutes, Canfor held out his pocket for Batchelor to take out the summons, and quietly gave up the fleece, and went away; the petitioner saw no violence used, the constable kept possession of the fleece and summons until the trial; the petitioner thought that if any question was to be settled as to the property in the ram, that the fleece ought not to remain in the custody of Canfor; it never was the petitioner's intention to take it out of the possession of one party to put it into the possession of the other; all that the petitioner desired was, that it should be in the custody of some indifferent person, or of the constable, in order to be forthcoming if any trial should take place; and the petitioner also thought his summons to Beale ought to have been returned to the petitioner; the petitioner was not at the assizes, and the compromise then made was directly in opposition to the petitioner's wishes and express directions, and known to be so by his solicitor and counsel; the petitioner has paid the 5l. damages agreed on, and 134l. more for Canfor's costs in such action, taxed as between attorney and client; the petitioner was a perfect stranger to every thing that passed between the parties or between them and any other person, except as above stated, until a few days before the as sizes, and the petitioner protests against being in any manner affected thereby; the petitioner had no knowledge of Canfor before he called the first time, as above stated; the petitioner knew William Beale, had never spoken to him, nor did afterwards, until a few days before the trial of Canfor's action; the petitioner could have had no motive for partiality, or for denial of justice; the petitioner does not presume to say that he may not have erred in judgment, but, if he did, he with the fullest confidence submits his conduct to the favourable consideration of the House, and prays that justice may be done him in the premises."
then spoke in the following terms:—"I should have thought I might have rested the case of Mr. Kenrick on his own statement of it, were it not for that part of the transaction in which I was personally concerned. Mr. Kenrick intrusted his defence against Canfor to Mr. Bolland and myself, and when the trial was called on, I understood that the object of Canfor was only to obtain his costs. Certainly, I was of opinion, that Mr. Kenrick had not a legal defence, and that a verdict must pass against him, which would carry costs. I suggested, therefore, to the counsel on the other side, that if such were really the object of Canfor, that object might be attained by taking a verdict, which we should not resist. The plaintiff was accordingly called, and he and his, counsel consulted, and with his perfect approbation the arrangement was made. The costs, of curse, would remain to be taxed by the officer of the court, who would necessarily take into his consideration the terms of the arrangement; and who would allow costs to the full extent according to those terms. Such being the fact, it will remain for this House to determine whether, after the party has been disappointed in the amount he expected to receive, the petition has not been resorted to rather as a measure of revenge than of justice. What other meaning could be given to the phrase, that Canfor would again "tackle" Mr. Kenrick, if he were not able to obtain from him a larger sum of money than the officer of the court awarded? The case appears to be this, and this only. A perfect stranger waits upon Mr. Kenrick as a magistrate, and charges a man of a respectable station and character with a felony. He states, that a number of his sheep had strayed, and that a part were found upon Westwood Common; that Beale had taken one of them;—that he found it in his fold with others, and that it was shorn like others. The farmer insisted that it was his own ram, which he imagined had strayed from his flock, and which had been marked by some other person, in order to deceive him as to his property. The farmer did not pretend that it was his mark, and he produced the fleece; but, if the manner and deportment of Canfor were then at all like what they have been this evening, it will not be difficult to imagine that it occasioned some little degree of reluctance on the part of Beale, the party accused. The question was presented to Mr. Kenrick as one merely of disputed property: two different men claimed the same sheep and one of the parties claiming required a search-warrant against the other as for a felony. I apprehend that it will hardly be laid down as an axiom, that a search-warrant is to be granted on every occasion, merely because it is asked for. If so, the situation of a magistrate will be rendered very different from what it is at present. Gentlemen of rank and learning will no longer be required for this important office, to decide under what circumstances they will invade the security of a man's dwelling, or infringe the personal liberty of the 1370 subject. If it be imperative to grant search warrants on demand, no inquiry will be necessary, and discretion rendered useless. Mr. Kenrick exercised his judgment when he was applied to; and to me it seems that he exercised his judgment soundly when he refused the search-warrant. If I am wrong in this opinion, and Mr. Kenrick was wrong in his decision, I say confidently that it does not establish a case for calling a magistrate to the bar of this House to answer an accusation of this description. If a magistrate be guilty of misconduct, the courts of law are open to an application against him from any individual, however poor; and Mr. Canfor, who is not stated to be a pauper, might have resorted thither. Mr. Canfor might have moved the court of King's-bench, or he might have preferred an indictment against Mr. Kenrick; but he did neither the one nor the other. He considered merely that he had suffered a civil injury; for that injury he commenced a civil action, and he received compensation upon terms consented to by himself. He comes before this House, however, alleging that there has been a denial of justice, by which a charge of felony has been suppressed or defeated. I beg to ask in what way has any denial of justice been proved. What would a search-warrant have obtained for him more than he did obtain by means of the summons which was granted? Canfor had his ram and its fleece restored to him; and there was nothing to shew that Beale had acted dishonestly in taking it from Westwood Common. Then, let me ask, in the second place, how has a charge of felony been suppressed or defeated? What means of prosecution had Canfor before, which he had not after the refusal to grant the search-warrant? He was obstructed and crippled in no way, and be might have proceeded in many ways, but to this hour he has instituted no prosecution. I therefore humbly but confidently submit, that taking all the facts stated in Canfor's petition to be true, they amount to nothing; he went to a magistrate on a question of disputed property; the magistrate, in the exercise of his discretion, refused a search-warrant, and the complainant re-possessed himself of all he had lost without it. He did not state to Mr. Kenrick that he could produce a man who saw Beale leading away the ram in a string. Beale asserted that the animal was his own, and that it had strayed from his flock. Taking, therefore, the petition, and the whole statement of Canfor this night, there is not the slightest pretence for imputing to Mr. Kenrick a denial of justice, or that he was actuated by any other motives than those which ought to guide a magistrate in the impartial discharge of his responsible functions."
The Chairman then asked Mr. Gurney, whether he intended to call any evidence? The learned gentleman replied, that he did not feel it to be necessary. Mr. Bolland being asked, whether he desired to address any observations to the committee, stated, that he did not feel it 1371 to be necessary. The counsel were then directed to withdraw.
§ Lord Eastnor
then rose, and said, that residing in the neighbourhood of Mr. Kenrick, he was able to give the same testimony to his character and conduct which had been borne on a former night by the hon. member for Surrey. He also knew Beale, and had always looked upon him as a worthy and honest man. A search-warrant ought not to be granted but in cases of grave suspicion, and no felonious intent had been at all made out against Beale. Mr. Nash, the individual to whom reference had been had by the parties, was a highly respectable farmer, much employed in valuing land and in settling disputes between private parties.
§ Mr. Canning
said, he apprehended it was quite impossible to proceed with the case, in its present state. They had, on one side, evidence given at their bar, which would be printed; on the other side, they had the speech of a learned counsel, which was evanescent. They certainly could not proceed unless some motion was made.
§ Mr. Canning
thought it would be unfair to assent to a motion of this kind, the evidence being all on one side. He was ready to go to a verdict on the case, as it now stood; and, if no other person would make a specific motion on the subject, he would.
§ Mr. Denman
said, the course he intended to pursue was a plain and clear one. Charges had been brought against an individual at the bar, and a witness had been heard. Individuals had been mentioned who, if it were necessary, might have been examined on the other side. As those persons had not been called, how could the House dispose of the business except by printing the evidence, and adjourning it. A most able, ingenious, and eloquent speech, had been delivered by the counsel for Mr. Kenrick. There were many novelties connected with this case, and amongst them, perhaps, the greatest was the proposition laid down by the right hon. gentleman, when he asked, why should the evidence be circulated without the speech of the learned counsel? He should like the right hon. gentleman to point out any precedent where a speech delivered by counsel, or by any other person in that House, or 1372 at the bar of that House, was so sent forth along with the evidence. Was there much danger, he would ask, from sending out the evidence in the way proposed, when it was quite clear that other speeches and other sentiments—speeches and sentiments opposed to that evidence—would be delivered in the course of the discussion on the subject? The question here was between a poor isolated individual, who endeavoured to recover his property, and who, in making that effort, had been imprisoned. Now, he should like to know whether, without the publication of any speeches, a just verdict might not be given on the evidence which had been adduced? Persons who might have been called on the other side had not been brought forward. But the right hon. gentleman seemed to think that, the case could not be properly gone on with, because the memory of the members of that House could not be trusted with the eloquent speech which had accompanied the evidence given at their bar. Until, however, it was shown to be the regular course to print such speeches, he would pursue that line of conduct which he had already intimated. He would now move, "that the chairman report progress, and that the evidence be printed."
§ Mr. Peel
said, that the speech of the learned gentleman was entirely beside the real question. He began with a charge against Mr. Kenrick, and those who really wished to investigate the matter called on him to bring forward some written specific accusation. The learned gentleman declined that course, declaring that the petition of Canfor contained the charge. The question, therefore, was, whether the evidence given by Canfor had produced such an impression on the House as to render it necessary to proceed further. It appeared to him, that no persons were so fit to judge of the merits of this case as those who had just heard the evidence given at their bar. Having attended to all that had been stated by Canfor, he was perfectly ready to move, "that the House having read the testimony adduced by Mr. Canfor in support of his petition, do not think it necessary to institute any further proceedings."
said, that they wished the judgment of that House to give satisfaction to Mr. Kenrick, and to the public at large, the course proposed by the right hon. gentleman would not effect that object. The proper mode of proceeding 1373 would be, to report the evidence, to have it printed; and if his learned friend did not forthwith call on the House for its judgment, it was competent for any hon. member to do so.
§ Mr. Canning
said, that the motion appeared to be for a dissolution of the committee, without taking any further proceedings, and without any pledge that they would take further notice of the subject. He thought it would be better not to dismiss it in this way. If it would not interfere with the learned gentleman's convenience, the subject might be resumed tomorrow, or any other day he might appoint. Certainly, some motion should be made on the subject. The learned gentleman might do so so soon as the evidence was printed. He thought means might be adopted, not only to meet to-morrow, but to meet at an early hour, in order to take this question into consideration.
§ Mr. Denman
said, his intention certainly was, that the evidence should be printed. After hearing that evidence, and a long cross-examination of the witness it would not raise the character of the House summarily to dispose of the case. He thought it would not be a prudent course to meet to-morrow; because it was necessary, if they wished to form a right judgment of tie case, to weigh that evidence maturely which they had only heard viva voce.
§ The Speaker
said, the impression on his mind was, that some specific resolution ought to emanate from the committee. What he said related only to the form of the proceeding, and had nothing to do with the merits of the case. That resolution, when laid before the House, was in their hands, and they might deal with it as they thought fit.
perfectly agreed with the right hon. gentleman in the sentiments which he had just expressed.
§ Mr. J. Williams
said, that a full opportunity had been afforded to Mr. Kenrick of making a complete defence. He could not concur, therefore, in the opinion of the right hon. Secretary, that Mr. Kenrick had not been heard.
Mr. Secretary Peel
observed, that what 1374 he had stated was, that there was no sufficient ground for instituting any further proceeding.
§ Mr. J. Williams
said, the counsel had been asked, whether they wished to call any witnesses in behalf of Mr. Kenrick, and they had declined to do so. Evidence had been heard in support of the charge, and Mr. Kenrick's counsel had been heard in his defence. The main question, then, before the committee was, when, and in what manner, the committee should come to a decision on the merits of the case? He certainly thought it would be premature to come to a decision before the evidence was printed, and put into the hands of members.
said, he was prepared to vote with the right hon. Secretary. Of Mr. Kenrick he had little knowledge. Though they were neighbours, they were opposed in political matters; but no private feeling should ever prevent him from doing what he conceived to be his duty. Knowing the party against whom the search-warrant was sought to be obtained, he thought Mr. Kenrick was right in not bringing that individual before him for a felony. His conduct in getting back the note from Canfor was, he thought, wrong; but he saw no reason for proceeding further in the case.
§ Sir J. Wrottesley
said, that they ought to come to some desicion on this case, and he was not unprepared to do so. The individual who petitioned the House had been examined and cross-examined most strictly. The learned counsel had stated that they had no evidence to bring forward. This constituted a fair trial; and he would say that the committee had an opportunity of gaining as correct a judgment now as they would at any future period. With respect to the conduct of Mr. Ken rick, when the charge was made against a respectable farmer, he should have been exceedingly cautious as to the course which he adopted, and taken very nearly the same course that Mr. Kenrick had done. When a warrant was applied for to search a man's premises, very strong circumstances should be adduced before he would grant it. To issue such an instrument lightly was a most unwarrantable abuse of authority. While he admitted this, he could not excuse Mr. Kenrick's conduct, to Canfor when he went into the magistrate's room: that could not be passed over without censure. On that point the learned counsel had never opened his lips. 1375 What was he to infer from that circumstance? That one of the most able and prudent counsel at the bar did not dare to touch upon this fact. He must suppose that the learned counsel felt that culpability was attached to the transaction. He was not the accuser of Mr. Kenrick. If severe censure on his conduct were proposed, he certainly would not agree to it; but, on the other hand, he could not for the honour of the magistracy of the country, suffer his conduct to pass unnoticed.
Mr. Secretary Peel
observed, that all he had said was, that the evidence before the committee did not warrant them in instituting any further proceedings. The charge brought against Mr. Kenrick was, undoubtedly, a heavy one. It was no less than that of having suppressed and defeated a charge of felony, on account of the supposed connexion between the party accused and a servant of his own. This charge had been entirely refuted; for it was shown that Mr. Kenrick had no wish to screen the offender. The subsequent part of Mr. Kenrick's conduct was, undoubtedly, extremely injudicious; but it was impossible for the House to throw out of its consideration, that an action had been brought against him on account of this conduct, and that he had been put to the expense of 200l. No charge of corruption had been proved against him; and with respect to any misconduct arising from error of judgment and intemperance, he really thought the House ought to rest satisfied with the adjudication of a court of justice.
thought the House was bound to embody in its resolution, an expression of its disapprobation of the conduct of Mr. Kenrick. If this course were not adopted, the people would not believe that that House was inclined to interfere when magistrates were proved to have acted improperly.
said, that the proposition of his right hon. friend was far from involving any approbation of the conduct of Mr. Kenrick. Could it be said that Mr. Canfor was without redress? By no means. He had received the redress which the law allowed him; and if any gentleman was of opinion that, on the testimony received, this was a case to justify an address to the Crown, praying the removal of Mr. Kenrick from his situation, it was quite competent for such member to submit such a proposition; but for himself, he 1376 could see no ground for any further proceeding.
thought that, in the present state of the opinion of the committee, it was not necessary to carry this discussion any further now. If it were so, he should agree that he had never seen a witness whose examination was less calculated to substantiate the charge he was brought to make out. There could be no doubt that Mr. Kenrick's conduct had been indiscreet and reprehensible; but the question now was, whether it had been so much so as to justify the House in addressing the Crown for his removal. He must confess that he saw no ground for doing so. At the same time, he thought the case was not one on which the House should come to a precipitate decision, or in which the usual forms should be cut short. There was no reason why the evidence should not be printed. @@@This could not be done by to-morrow, but by Monday he thought it might. The learned member might then state the case as the evidence disclosed it, and propose any measure he thought necessary.
§ Mr. Canning
said, his opinion was, that the question which had been referred to the committee required the decision of the committee. He would not say what that decision ought to be but, if the motion suggested by his right hon. friend should be put, the learned gentleman, if he had any thing criminatory to propose, might move it by way of amendment. The whole of the case, it seemed, had been gone through. At half past seven o'clock it was said, that there was nothing further to state against the accused; and it was now proposed to break up the committee and take further time to consider what decision it should come to. If it were thought necessary that time should be taken for this purpose, he was content that the postponement should take place. He had received an intimation, that the evidence could not be printed in time for to-morrow He was therefore willing that the committee should be adjourned until Monday with the understanding that the learned gentleman should be then prepared to say what he thought ought to be done.
§ Mr. Denman
gladly accepted this proposal. He was not now prepared to move any particular resolution on the subject. If was possible that he might, upon further consideration, think it unnecessary to say any more upon the subject; although, 1377 if that should be his determination, he confessed that his opinion must undergo such a revolution as he could not at present contemplate. The case, as it stood before the committee, was one which concerned the fair administration of justice, and in this respect it had unanswerable claims to the most serious attention. He could not bring himself to believe, that the House would so far forget its duty to the country as to omit to pass such a censure upon the conduct of Mr. Kenrick as it should seem to deserve. If he should continue in his present opinion, he would propose a friction on Monday: if not he would willingly withdraw the proceeding he had begun. He had spoken to no one on the subject, and, as his hon. friends would testify, he had asked for no support from them. He had only preferred the charge contained in the petition; and the evidence had, in his opinion, substantiated the allegations of that petition.
§ Mr. Canning
said, that when the subject came again before the House, he should be prepared to vote against any further proceedings in this matter. The charges against Mr. Kenrick appeared to be two. The first was one which had already been tried, and for which he had paid the penalty in a civil action. The second was a charge of refusing a warrant, not one tittle of evidence in support of which was to be relied on.
§ Mr. Peel
was still of opinion, that the committee ought at once to have discharged the duty imposed upon it. He could not understand upon what pretext it could be said, that the committee ought not now to do that, which was always done in every branch of the administration of criminal justice in the country. Grand juries came to a decision upon deliberations not longer, and common juries sent criminals to execution upon an immediate view of the case, and after evidence had been heard. He however consented to the postponement; not for the reasons which had been urged in support of such a step, but because several members of the committee had not stayed to discharge the duty which they had entered upon.
§ Mr. Hume
thought nothing could be more suitable to the justice of the case, than that the House should deliberate before they come to a decision. He should be sorry if any notion were to get abroad, that the committee had not done their duty in postponing this question. He thought, on the contrary, that the course 1378 they were about to pursue was at once both consistent with justice and with the dignity of the House.
§ Mr. Goulburn
thought, that an immediate decision might have been come to consistently with the justice of the case. Those who had heard the evidence were much more competent than any other persons to come to that decision; because although others might read the evidence when printed, they could know nothing of the manner in which that evidence had been given.
The Chairman then reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again on Monday.