§ MR. T. M. HEALY
I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the report of the Judgment of Mr. Justice Monroe, re "King's Estate," in the Dublin papers of 4th July, dismissing Mr. Matthew Weld O'Connor from the Receivership, and commenting strongly on his conduct in allowing four tenants to be sued for £27 2s., rents they had already paid, and surcharging him therewith, and with other sums, amounting to £181 13s., "verified" by Mr. O'Connor to have been spent on police huts and emergency men: whether Mr. O'Connor is a Magistrate for the three counties of Longford, Cavan, and Meath, and will be retained in the Commission of the Peace; whether he has observed that Judge Monroe also condemned the conduct of an under agent, named Francis Cooke, of whom his Lordship remarked that his form of receipt was "a curiosity," butDid not feel at liberty in holding on mere suspicion that Cooke had been guilty of perjury and fraud;whether Cooke is barony cess collector, process server, and summons server in Longford or Leitrim; will Government take any steps to have him removed from these positions; will a secret inquiry, under Section 1 of the Criminal Law and Precedure (Ireland) Act, be held to obtain evidence to prosecute Cooke in case that existing already is not considered sufficient; if not, is the suspicion of "perjury and fraud" con- 93 sidered insufficient to ground such inquiry; and is Cooke the same person who was tried for shooting a girl in Mohill, and got off on the plea of self-defence?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
I beg to refer the hon. and learned Member to the reply given to this question when down some days ago, so far as it relates to the case of Mr. O'Connor. With respect to the case of Cooke, he appears to hold in the County Leitrim the positions mentioned in the fourth paragraph. As, however, such appointments are not made by the Irish Government, they have no power to consider the propriety of his continuing to hold them, or otherwise. There does not appear to be any ground for the course suggested in the sixth paragraph. In the absence of any positive direction from the Judge, the proper course would appear to be for the aggrieved party to make complaint on oath, whereupon the necessity for criminal proceedings would be considered. Cooke had on a former occasion been returned for trial as stated in the last paragraph, but the Grand Jury found "No bill" in the case.
§ MR. T. M. HEALY
Is not the estate in Chancery, and, if so, is it not the Court of Receivers who are the aggrieved persons? Seeing that the Judge suggests a suspicion of perjury and fraud, is it not a case for a prosecution?