§ COLONEL KING-HARMANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Mangan, High Sheriff of Drogheda, is still the proprietor of a house where wine, spirits, and cyder are sold contrary to Act of Parliament; whether, if such be the case, it is the intention of the Excise to prosecute Mr. Mangan for a deliberate and daily breach of the Law; and, whether the Government intend to allow a person who knowingly and publicly violates the Law to retain the honourable office of High Sheriff?
§ MR. HEALYI also beg to ask the Chief Secretary, whether it is the fact that the Government, on receiving a communication from the High Sheriff of Drogheda informing them that he was willing to resign his position, informed him that they had been advised that, on taking the office, his licence had lapsed?
§ MR. TREVELYANMr. Mangan is still the proprietor of a house where wine and spirits are sold. A Question as to the intention of the Excise authorities would more properly have been addressed to the Secretary to the Treasury; but I understand the Commissioners of Inland Revenue consider it more than doubtful whether they could take proceedings for the recovery of the penalty in this case, and they do not intend to do so. As the hon. and gallant Member is aware, the circumstances are quite novel; and there appears to be some variance of opinion as to the exact 1408 legal bearing of the case. Neither the Irish Government nor the Commissioners of Inland Revenue wish to act harshly towards Mr. Mangan, who, no doubt, acted bonâ fide, and was taken by surprise. In regard to his continuance in the office of High Sheriff, the Lord Lieutenant has decided to accept his resignation, and to supersede him; but His Excellency has decided that, owing to the near approach of the Assizes, it would be embarrassing and inconvenient to do so at once. With regard to the Question of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), the facts are as stated; but I think his Question with regard to the bearing of legal opinion has been already answered.
§ MR. HEALYNo, Sir; the right hon. Gentleman has directly contradicted the letter of Mr. Robert Hamilton. [Cries of1 Order!"] I shall put it to the right hon. Gentleman in the form of a Question. Is it not the fact that Sir Robert Hamilton has directed a letter to Mr. Mangan informing him that, owing to his having accepted the office of High Sheriff, his licence lapsed? Upon that ground now, does the Lord Lieutenant propose to supersede him in the office of High Sheriff?
§ MR. TREVELYANMr. Mangan has resigned.
§ MR. TREVELYANI should like to answer that Question on Notice. But I should think it not improbable, as a matter of conjecture, that if Mr. Mangan continues in the office of High Sheriff, it may be possible that the Government might then consider itself morally obliged to proceed against him for selling drink without a licence. I think that is possible.
§ MR. HEALYHow can that be so; for the right hon. Gentleman has stated Mr. Maugan's licence has lapsed?
§ MR. TREVELYANMr. Mangan is now selling, I presume, beer and spirits without a licence. The Government consider he has been brought into that position not by his own fault, and they will not prosecute him. If they continued him in the office of High Sheriff, it might fairly be argued they would be bound to prosecute him.
§ COLONEL KING-HARMANI should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, if a common informer chose to lay infor- 1409 mation against Mr. Mangan, would the Excise not be obliged to prosecute him? Has he not lost his licence and the office of High Sheriff by the mistake of the Department?
§ MR. TREVELYANI should prefer to ask legal advice before I answer that Question. I am bound to say that, except on absolute pressure, the Government in Ireland will never prosecute an innocent man.
§ MR. HEALYMight I ask the hon. and gallant Member for Dublin (Colonel King-Harman) whether he would have any objection to become the common informer?