HC Deb 10 August 1882 vol 273 cc1367-9
MR. HEALY

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether it is correct, as stated in the Cork papers of the 31st ultimo, that one of Her Majesty's gun-boats has had to be placed at the disposal of the Sub-Commissioners who are trying land cases at Castletown, Berehaven, in order to take them every day to and from their hotel at Glengariff, a distance of 20 miles; whether this has been owing to the refusal of accommodation by the hotel keeper at Castletown; whether this gentleman is the Honourable Robert White, J. P.; whether a prosecution for Boycotting has been instituted against Mr. White; whether the police will be instructed to object to Mr. White's licence at the next licensing sessions; whether, in a similar case of refusal of hotel accommodation at Charleville, the proprietor, Mr.. O'Gorman, after being subjected to a civil action, was prosecuted criminally by the Crown; whether his licence was subsequently objected to by the police; whether there is any difference between Mr. White's case and Mr. O'Gorman's; if not, whether he can explain why the authorities took action in one case and not in the other; whether it is the fact that, under the Crimes Act, persons of the humbler classes have been sent to gaol in Cork county for refusing to work for persons whom they disliked; what the reason is for the neglect of the police in not taking similar action against the Honourable Robert White; and, whether, as Mr. White holds the Commission of the Peace, the Lord Chancellor will take similar notice of his conduct, as was done some years ago in the case of Lord Leitrim when he refused the use of his hotel to the Lord Lieutenant?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)

said, he had to apologize for the absence of his right hon. and learned Friend. It was correct, as stated in the Cork papers, that one of Her Majesty's gun-boats had been placed at the disposal of the Sub-Commissioners trying cases at Castletown for the purposes mentioned, owing to the want of hotel accommodation there. The fact was the hotel keeper, having had some difference with his servants, was obliged to close his hotel, and that without any reference to the Sub-Commissioners. The keeper of the hotel was not the Hon. Robert White, who had nothing whatever to do with it, except that he was the landlord of the place, and he had not even heard of the alleged refusal to accommodate the Sub-Commissioners until he saw this Notice of Question. No prosecution had been instituted against him, nor was there likely to be one. The police would not be instructed to object to the licence of the Hon. Robert White, because he had no licence, and had nothing whatever to do with the hotel, excepting that he was the landlord; and even if he had, nothing had been done to necessitate interference. It was a fact that against a hotel keeper named O'Gorman a prosecution was directed some time ago by the Attorney General for Ireland; but this was withdrawn when it was discovered that two civil actions had also been instituted, and that he had likewise been imprisoned as a "suspect." The police, he believed, did object to a renewal of his licence, and it was refused; but there was a very great difference between this case and that of the Hon. Robert White's. It was not a fact that persons of the humbler class had been sent to gaol under the Prevention of Crime Act for refusing to work for persons whom they disliked. He felt certain that the Lord Chancellor would not interfere in the matter by instituting an inquiry, as he had nothing whatever to do with it.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

Is it a fact that the Attorney General for Ireland did prosecute Mr. O'Gorman?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)

I have already stated that a prosecution was commenced; but that it was dropped when it was discovered that two civil actions were commenced.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman—["Order, order!"] This is a question arising out of the answer. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman mean to say that Mr. O'Gorman was never put upon his trial by the instructions of the Attorney General for Ireland? Is he ignorant of the fact that Mr. O'Gorman was actually put on his trial, and that it was only upon the disagreement of the jury that the case was stopped?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)

I dare say that what the hon. Gentleman states is a fact; but it is not inconsistent with the answer I have given.

MR. HEALY

After the distinct denial of the hon. and learned Gentleman, I may state that I know of my own knowledge that the full and entire facts of the matter have been set out in the public Press.