HC Deb 29 April 1884 vol 287 cc890-1
MR. LYNCH

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Charles Jones Henry has been appointed petty sessions clerk for the district of Grange, county Sligo; whether he is the same person who some time since reported to the Police that he had been assaulted at night on his way home from a fair, and robbed of £81 county cess which he had collected; whether his statement was discredited by the magistrate who investigated the case; whether the appointment of Mr. Henry as petty sessions clerk has been made in the absence of two of the justices who usually attend the Grange Petty Sessions Court; and, whether the appointment will be confirmed?

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

Perhaps the right hon. Gentlemen will answer my Question at the same time, Whether it is a fact that the Government were recommended to offer a reward for the apprehension of the prisoner who last year attacked and injured Mr. Charles Jones Henry in the county of Sligo; whether this recommendation was made by magistrates who had the best means of ascertaining the circumstances relative to the said assault; whether the character of Mr. Charles Jones Henry is such as to fully qualify him for the position of petty sessions clerk, or of any other position in which integrity and good conduct are necessary qualifications; and, whether the Constabulary and the local authorities are satisfied with his appointment?

MR. TREVELYAN

The facts are as stated in the first, second, and fourth paragraphs of the Question of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Lynch). The circumstances as to the reported outrage on Mr. Henry were never satisfactorily cleared up, and the case is one as to which there was some variance of opinion amongst those who were engaged in investigating it. The election of Mr. Henry to the office of Petty Sessions Clerk has not yet been submitted to the Lord Lieutenant for confirmation, and I am unable to anticipate His Excellency's decision. A private reward for information in this case was offered, but without result; and it was not considered that any advantage would be obtained by the offer of a public reward, as was recommended by the magistrates of the district. As the hon. and gallant Member's (Colonel King - Harman's) Question only appeared on the Paper today, I have had no opportunity of ascertaining what is the feeling of the Constabulary or "local authorities" as to the appointment; nor do I know that it would be their duty to express an opinion on the subject unless confidentially for the information of the Government.

COLONEL KING - HARMAN

complained that his Question on this subject had been altered by the Clerk at the Table.

MR. SEXTON

asked whether it was not a fact that of the four Justices on the Bench two were for Mr. Henry and two for another; and that the way in which Mr. Henry got elected was by his supporters going to the Bench and voting for him behind the backs of the two others?

MR. TREVELYAN

said, he would not express any opinion on the matter, as it was now before the Lord Lieutenant.