HC Deb 16 March 1882 vol 267 cc1000-2

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether Messrs, Joseph Wren and Thomas Kitwood, who resumed their seats on the Boston Borough Bench last July, are the same persons who were scheduled by the Boston Bribery Commissioners, as being guilty of bribery; whether the Mr. Wren aforesaid is the gentleman who gave evidence in the case of Regina v. Rowley, at Lincoln, on Monday, July 25th, 1881; whether the Mr. Kitwood aforesaid is the same gentleman who was prosecuted for corrupt practices at Lincoln Assizes in July last, a nolle prosequi being entered, because, as the Solicitor General stated, a statement had been sent to the Bribery Commissioners by Mr. Kitwood, although it had not been read by them, and the Commissioners preferred to treat him as a party who had been examined, although practically he had no certificate; whether it is correct that Captain Henry Charles Allenby, of Ken-wick House, Louth, who was scheduled for providing £400 for direct bribery, is still permitted to act as justice of the peace for Lindsey and other divisions of the county of Lincoln; and, why, although another Boston Borough justice, named Samuel Pilley, who was scheduled for paying the sum of £5, in small amounts, to eighteen men, for work done on the day of the poll and previously (which employment it was contended was perfectly legal, and for the receipt of which the employés were not scheduled), was struck off the Borough Roll, Mr. Wren, who provided £750, and Mr. Kitwood, £100, for direct bribery, are still permitted to act as justices?


Before the Attorney General answers that Question, I wish to appeal to you, Sir, on a point of Order, and to ask you whether the hon. Member for Northampton is justified in stating in a Question put in this House that a gentleman is guilty of a direct act of bribery, who, by a jury of his countrymen, has been found not guilty?


The hon. Member for Northampton, has put the Question on his own responsibility, and I have no desire to interpose between the hon. Member and the House.


As I understand the Question, it does not say that this gentleman is absolutely guilty of bribery, but only that he was scheduled by the Commissioners. [Mr. T. COLLINS: I am speaking of the fifth paragraph.] I will not enter into that matter, except to say that the suggestions contained in the first three paragraphs of my hon. Friend's Question are substantially correct. As regards Captain Allenby, I have to say that the fiat of the Lord Chancellor for the removal of this gentleman from the Roll of Justices was issued three weeks ago. As to the last portion of the Question, there are special circumstances attending these cases; but they are receiving the careful consideration of the Lord Chancellor, and his decision will shortly be given.


asked, whether, in view of the further consideration of these cases, it would be borne in mind that Mr. Parnell was removed from the list of Justices merely because he was reasonably suspected of inciting to intimidation?

[No answer was returned to the Question.]