§ MR. LOCKEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has made any inquiry into the conduct of Mr. Norris, a magistrate for Oxfordshire; and, if so, whether it is true that Mr. Norris did refuse to grant a summons against a farmer for a violent assault upon a labourer; and, whether Mr. Norris insisted upon the labourer settling the case by receiving money from Mr. Garrett?
MR. BRUCEsaid, that having made inquiry into the case, he was bound to say that there appeared to be no foundation for the charges against Mr. Norris which were to be inferred from the Question. It appeared that a farmer of the name of Garrett having assaulted a labourer in his employ, the latter called upon Mr. Norris in order to obtain a summons against his master. In the meantime the farmer had an interview with Mr. Norris, had admitted the assault, and had expressed his readiness to make his servant any pecuniary compensation that the magistrate might think proper. Mr. Norris informed the labourer of this offer, at the same time telling him that if he preferred it he was perfectly willing to grant the summons, and that it was for him to determine whether he would accept or refuse the offer of compensation. He also informed him that in the event of a summons being granted, any fine which might be inflicted upon the farmer would go to the county fund and not to the injured person. The labourer at once joyfully accepted the offer. He was assured that the statement that Mr. Norris had refused to grant the summons in question, or had thrown any difficulty in the way of its being issued, was without foundation. He might mention that the Trades Union in the district had applied for a summons against Garrett under the Criminal Law 1350 Amendment Act of last year for attempting to coerce his servant into not joining their body.