§ MR. LALORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Was it by order of the Government that two policemen were posted at the door of a private person in the town of Por-tarlington, Queen's County, on the 9th instant, in order to take down in a note book the names of the persons who entered for the purpose of attending a meeting, convened by public placards, to establish a branch of the Irish National Land League; and, if he will inform the House for what reason a land meeting which had been advertised to take place previously, in the same town, had boon prohibited by the Lord Lieutenant?
§ MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, the first part of the Question only appeared on the Paper the day before, and he yesterday sent to Dublin with respect to it, and he had not up to this time received a Report. He believed that the Constabulary authorities in Dublin had referred it to the local police. With regard to the second part of the Question, he had to state that informations were laid before the Government to the effect that a Land League meeting and a rival meeting were to be hold at Portarlington on the 19th ultimo, and that the first-named was called together for the purpose of denouncing and intimidating certain of Her Majesty's subjects, and deterring them from exercising their lawful rights. The informations stated that they were likely to lead to a breach of the peace if permitted to be held; and the Government, therefore, prohibited both meetings by proclamation.
THE O'DONOGHUEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can state whether the magistrates who proclaimed and prohibited the land meeting announced to be held at Causeway, in Kerry, on the 6th instant resided in the locality, or how near to it; what was the reason assigned in the proclamation for prohibiting the meeting; and, whether it is true that Mr. Massey, the stipendiary magistrate, read the Riot Act, although there was no riot or disturbance of any hind, and compelled the people, by threatening to employ the police and military, to leave the village of Causeway, although there was no attempt to hold the meeting, and Mr. Massey was assured by its organisers that no attempt to hold it would be made?
§ MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, that the names of the magistrates who prohibited the meeting were printed at the foot of the proclamation—they were Lord Ventry, Major Rowan, the Mac-Gillicuddy, and Mr. Massey, R.M., all magistrates of the county; but he did not know how far their residences wore from Causeway. The reason assigned in the proclamation for the prohibition of the meeting was that informations on oath had been sworn that certain magistrates of the county would be denounced at the meeting, and a breach of the peace would probably take place. A largo crowd of 3,000 or 4,000 people assembled in the village, and, notwithstanding the advice of some priests who were present, remained there. They cantinued to assemble until about 3 o'clock in the afternoon, when Mr. Massey, with a view of dispersing them, read the Riot Act; but this had no effect, and he read it again. Finally, he had to employ the police and military in clearing the street, which was done with as little violence as possible, and he believed no one was injured.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERI have given the whole of the particulars.
THE O'DONOGHUEI had intended to put a Question to the Attorney General for Ireland; but, in his absence, I shall put it to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, who is, no doubt, equally well qualified to answer it. It is, Whether it is a lawful proceeding for magistrates to read the Riot Act in cases 1228 where there is no riot or disturbance of any hind?
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTI must ask the hon. Gentleman to put the Question down upon the Paper.