HC Deb 23 February 1888 vol 322 cc1219-20

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the practice of the Irish Lord Chancellor, when he has superseded a magistrate, to communicate the correspondence in the case to the Press; whether this course was followed in the case of the hon. Member for East Waterford and Coroner Byrne; why the same practice was not pursued in the case of Mr. E. H. E. White, of Glengariff, County Cork; and, whether there will be any objection to lay the correspondence between the Lord Chancellor and Mr. White upon the Table of the House?

THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said (Kent, Isle of Thanet)

It is not the practice of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland to communicate to the Press his correspondence with magistrates who have been superseded. The publication of the correspondence in the cases referred to did not emanate from the Lord Chancellor, nor with his cognizance. The usual practice was pursued in the case of Mr. White; and the Lord Chancellor does not see that any public advantage would be gained by dealing with it in the exceptional manner suggested.