§ MR. E. HARRINGTON (Kerry, W.)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the renewal of the Hotel Licence of Mr. John Lee of Dingle, has been refused by the local bench of magistrates, because he would not sign an undertaking to furnish cars for eviction duty; and, whether the Queen's Bench in Ireland last year granted licences which had been refused by local justices under similar circumstances; and, if so, whether the Government will take steps to compel magistrates to respect the decisions of the Court of Queen's Bench?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)(who replied) (Dublin University)said, this Question only appeared on the Motion Paper this morning, and it was impossible for him to say whether or not the facts were as stated in the first part of the Question. As to the second portion of the Question, any decision of the Court of Queen's Bench which had been given on this subject must be referable to the particular case which came before it. As he mentioned yesterday, the refusal of cars to police might be a ground for refusing the renewal of licences; but whether it was so or not would depend on the circumstances of each case.
§ MR. E. HARRINGTONasked if the right hon. and learned Gentleman was aware that the Bench of Magistrates being composed of landlords and land agents, they would naturally refuse hotel licences to any publicans who would not assist in the work of eviction in this manner?
§ MR. HOLMESsaid, it was perfectly competent, under certain circumstances, for a Bench of Magistrates under the powers conferred upon them by law to decline to give a certificate of renewal 1267 on the ground that the publican refused to furnish cars.
§ MR. E. HARRINGTONasked whether there was not a telegraph wire between Dublin Castle and Dingle, where this decision took place?
§ MR. HOLMESsaid, there was, but it was wholly impossible to get information in time. He had telegraphed at 11 o'clock, and up to the present had not received a reply.