MR. O'BRIENasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to The Carlisle Journal, of November the 4th, with reference to the evidence of Superintendent Sempill at the Cumberland Assizes; whether he is aware that the Journal states that, on reference to—
Another and perfectly independent report of the same portion of Mr. Sempill's evidence,as that impugned in the case of the 1463 Journal report, it was found to read as follows:—There was also a constable from Longtown named Tomer. Tomer was brought down because he was an experienced detective officer;whether he has observed that the learned judge in summing up the case showed that he was under the same impression as to the evidence in the following remarks in reference to Mr. Sempill's evidence:I think it would have been better if the Deputy Chief Constable had candidly admitted what the object of the proceeding was. Instead of that he somewhat insults our understanding by telling us that he got this experienced detective from a distance for the purpose of ascertaining the state of the man's mind, and whether he was likely to injure himself in his cell;and, whether, under these circumstances, further inquiry will be made into the matter?
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, that he did not see how he could make any further inquiries that would lead to any different result than he had already stated. The Superintendent of Police, Superintendent Sempill, had informed him that the man referred to in the Question was not a detective, but an ordinary police-constable, and he had had a statement to the like effect from the man himself. That being so, he did not see that there was any use in making further inquiries.