§ MR. MOLLOYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, 1828 If it be true that on Monday the 24th ultimo at Rhode, in the King's County, the erection of huts to shelter poor labourers evicted by David Kerr was prevented by force under the orders of the resident magistrate; if it be true that these evicted labourers were thus left without any shelter, and without any means of subsistence, and under what law or by what authority the resident magistrate acted; and if he will take all necessary steps to prevent all further opposition to the erection of these huts, and against a repetition of such action; whether on the above occasion a most respectable farmer named O'Brien was taken into custody by orders of the resident magistrate, and then and there sentenced to a fortnight's imprisonment with hard labour for questioning the right of the magistrate to prevent the erection of the above huts; and, if he will order his immediate release?
§ MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, that in March the labourers at the place in question struck for an increase of wages, and a number of Scotch labourers were obtained to take the place of those who left. Protection to these men had been necessary, and a military guard was accordingly sent down. On the 25th of April materials for huts arrived at Rhode, and several people arrived to erect them. The Sub-Inspector and Head Constable swore informations that the huts were being erected to intimidate Mr. Kerr and his workmen. Mr. O'Brien, who was erecting them, was accordingly arrested, and called upon to enter into recognizances to be of good behaviour. That he refused to do, and was sent to gaol. The addition of "hard labour," he thought, could not be correct. If the Resident Magistrate acted without sufficient authority, the Superior Court would overrule his decision. He now wished to make a correction with regard to an answer given to a Question asked on the 4th of April. On that day, his hon. and learned Friend (the Solicitor General for Ireland), in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) relating to John Reynolds and Patrick Gannon, stated they were detained on suspicion of maiming cattle. John Reynolds had written to say he was arrested on suspicion of intimidating persons not to pay their rent. The mistake arose in consequence of 1829 there being two Gannons, one of whom was arrested on suspicion of maiming cattle; but as the one arrested with John Reynolds was not the one arrested for that act, it was only right that he should make this statement to the House.
§ MR. HEALYI wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it makes any difference to the man what he was arrested for, so long as as he is kept in gaol?
§ MR. W. E. FORSTEREvidently this person—and very naturally—did think it made a difference whether he was arrested for maiming cattle or intimidation, as he had written complaining of the accidental mis-statement.