§ MR.HAVILAND-BURKEsaid, he wished to ask Mr. Attorney General, What is the result of the communication which has been made to the Lord Chancellor respecting the committal of a juryman by Mr. W. H. Cook, County Court Judge of Norfolk; and, if it is with the sanction of the Lord Chancellor that Mr. W. H. Cook has been appointed a Magistrate for the county of Norfolk, and as such took his seat on the 22nd March, regardless of the Report made by the Commissioners appointed to inquire into Corrupt Practices at Beverley, and pending the decision of the Lord Chancellor as to the committal of the juryman?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL,in reply, said, a communication was addressed by the Lord Chancellor to Mr. Cook on the subject, and Mr. Cook had sent to the Lord Chancellor a reply, in which he said the reports in the two Norwich papers were substantially incorrect, and, when the facts of the case were 1175 known, it would be seen he was not open to the censure which had been passed upon him. He proceeded to state that the action in question was brought to recover £20 upon an I O U, and the defence set up was that, instead of being borrowed, it had been paid for repairs done by the defendant as a house carpenter; but the defendant himself admitted that, fairing to obtain an advance upon the work, he accepted the money as a loan and gave an I O U, and his advocate, declining to accept that statement, went to the jury, who found for; the defendant in the face of his admission, the foreman stating that they considered the plaintiff ought to be nonsuited—a declaration which was received with laughter. Nothing further took place, except that Mr. Cook intimated that he would not allow such a verdict to stand, whereupon the counsel for the defendant insisted upon its being recorded, which the Judge said had been done. A settlement of this matter was then attempted between the counsel and the Judge; but the plaintiff not being satisfied, the interference was in vain. After some discussion the Judge remarked, in answer to a question as to a new trial, that when a jury returned a perverse verdict the trial ought to be removed to a district where local prejudice could not affect the result. Thereupon the foreman said—"I consider your remarks are most unjustifiable," and the Judge committed him for contempt of court. He afterwards accepted an apology and countermanded the order; but an explanation given in the local papers was not uttered by the foreman at the time, nor would it have been considered an apology if it had been. The Lord Chancellor, in a further communication, said it did not appear necessary that he should take any further steps in the matter. It was on the 16th of October, 1869, a date long prior to the Report of the Commission, that the Lord Chancellor, acting on the recommendation of the Lord Lieutenant, in accordance with the usual custom, appointed Mr. Cook and other magistrates; Mr. Cook did not appear to have taken his seat until the 22nd of March; but that was a matter with which the Lord Chancellor had nothing to do.