§ MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the correspondence between the representative of a firm of solicitors and the Under Secretary in reference to a complaint made by the former, who alleges that, on the 17th ultimo, on calling at Dublin Castle, at the Petty Sessions Clerks' Registry Office, for information urgently required, it was repeatedly refused him by a subordinate official, James Mackey, unless a written communication were made, involving a loss of time of several days; that, on being asked his name, so that it might be ascertained if he was acting within his instructions, he refused to state it; that, on being reminded that he was a public official, paid out of the public funds, and bound to courtesy, he replied to applicant, "You contribute very little to them except when you are fined for being drunk and disorderly;" that, on being pressed for the information so much needed, he ordered applicant to leave the Office, and threatened to send for a policeman; that, on applicant's refusal to leave, he did actually send for a constable; that, on a complaint hereof being sent to Mr. Burke, Under Secretary, ten days were permitted to elapse before a reply was forwarded; whether there is any sufficient excuse for such delay; whether, on being further pressed, Mr. Burke again allowed ten days to elapse before answering; whether in his last communication he declined to take any further notice of the matter; whether if information is urgently needed from a Dublin Castle Office on an obvious matter, of which ignorance is not alleged or knowledge denied, application in writing is always insisted on; if so, whether it usually takes ten days to reply to such communications; whether Mr. Burke refused to answer five material questions put to him in the 1002 first letter; whether the Correspondence has been submitted to the Chief Secretary; whether he approves of the Under Secretary's answers, and of his refusal to cause suitable amends to be made to applicant for the indignities put upon him; whether Mackey was justified in refusing his name and in sending for a policeman; whether, if he does not approve of Mackey's language and conduct, he will state what notice he proposes to take of it; and, on what class of estimates this official's salary becomes a charge?
§ MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, he was sorry the hon. Member had thought fit to take up the time of the House by this Question. He also regretted the manner in which this Question was framed, and the way in which a very respectable man—Mr. Mackey—was alluded to. He had been informed that there was a dispute between a representative of a firm of solicitors and a gentleman who signed himself "A Solicitor's Apprentice," named Mr. Maurice Healy, a near relation of the hon. Member. [Mr. HEALY: Hear, hear!] He believed he was his brother. [Mr. HEALY: Hear, hear!] He was also informed that Mr. Healy told Mr. Mackey that he intended to commence proceedings against him, and therefore he thought it might have been better to have waited the result of those proceedings. He also thought the way in which the hon. Member alluded to Mr. Mackey, who was a most respectable person, was not in the best taste, though that was not much matter. He was referred to in the Question as Mackey, a "subordinate official." Mr. Mackey was Chief Clerk in the Petty Sessions Clerks' Registry Office, and was a most efficient and deserving officer. He had seen 40 years' service, and during that time there had been no complaint ever made against him by the public for want of courtesy or attention on his part. He (Mr. Mackey) entirely denied the decription of the interview which was given in this Question; but he thought that that was a matter which might fairly be left to the Court of Law to which Mr. Maurice Healy, it seemed, intended to apply.
§ MR. HEALYexplained that the reason why he put this Question on the Paper was not because any of the persons concerned were connected with him, 1003 but in order to show the way in which business was conducted in Dublin Castle. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it was true that Mr. Mackey, on being reminded that he was a public official, paid out of the public funds, and bound to courtesy, replied, "You contribute very little to the public funds, except when you are fined for being drunk and disorderly?" He (Mr. Healy) also asked whether, when information was urgently required, a written application was always insisted upon, involving a loss of 10 days?
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, Mr. Mackey denied that he made the statement referred to; but he did not think the Question was one with which the time of the House should be occupied. Mr. Mackey stated that the reason he refused the information was because he considered it was information he was not at liberty to give. He was then treated in a most insulting manner, and was obliged to call in a policeman to take care that Mr. Healy went out of the house.