HC Deb 11 December 1893 vol 19 cc1026-7
MR. BODKIN

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the District Inspector was present at the proceedings for compensation by Mr. Lewis, J.P., at the Woodford Petty Sessions, which he purports to describe; can he state from, whom his first inaccurate Report was obtained; whether he consulted the associated cesspayers, who took part in the proceedings, before making that Report; whether, in view of the vital importance of the accuracy of the official information supplied to the responsible Minister for the information of the House, he will institute a strict inquiry in order to bring the person detected in furnishing an inaccurate Report in this case to justice; whether he is aware that the claim made by Mr. Lewis for compensation turned entirely on the question if the injury complained of was malicious, regarding which no evidence was given, and that both the associated cesspayers present were of opinion no malice had been proved, and so voted; whether the claim of Mr. Lewis would have been lost but for the casting vote of Mr. Tener, which Mr. Lewis secured by voting him to the chair; whether it is in accordance with the law for a Magistrate, as such, to take any part direct or indirect in a matter in which he is pecuniarily concerned; and whether, seeing that Mr. Lewis by his action as Magistrate secured his own pecuniary claim and Mr. Tener aided him in so doing, he will reconsider his decision and report these gentlemen to the Lord Chancellor?

MR. BRYCE (for Mr. J. MORLEY)

The District Inspector was not present at the proceedings upon which he reported, nor was it his duty to be present. He interrogated two of his men who were in attendance at the Sessions before preparing his Report, which came from him as the proper channel through which official communications concerning the district in his charge are made. He states he did not consult the associated cesspayers, as they reside a considerable distance from Woodford, nor did he consult at the time either Mr. Tener or Mr. Lewis. The claim of Mr. Lewis did not, I am advised, depend on Mr. Tener having been voted by Mr. Lewis into the chair, as Mr. Tener was entitled and bound to take the chair irrespectively of such voting; and even if the claim had been rejected at the Sessions, it would have been competent to the applicant to renew his claim before the Judge of Assize, and to the Grand Jury to allow or disallow it. I have already stated that the mistake made by the District Inspector in his original Report appears to have been an innocent one, in reference to which I acquitted him of any improper motive, and I see no reason for taking any further notice of the matter.