§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.),in whose name the following Question stood on the Paper:—
To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is the intention of the Lord Chancellor to take any action with regard to the conduct of Colonel Long bourne, R.M., in making to the Government two reports of an irreconcilable character on a matter arising under his own observation in a Court of Justice,said, the Clerk at the Table has brought into this question something about the Lord Chancellor which I never dreamed of, and I do not know the meaning of the question now. The Lord Chancellor has no jurisdiction over this gentleman. The question I meant to put was whether, in view of the importance or non-importance of the discrepancy in the two reports of an irreconcilable character made by this gentleman, his administration of justice would continue to possess the confidence of the right hon. Gentleman?
§ *MR. SPEAKERThe question which the hon. and learned Member handed in merely dealt with a matter of opinion. With regard to the question on the Paper, it was understood that the hon. and learned Member desired to ask a question as to whether any action would be taken with regard to the conduct of this Magistrate by the Lord Chancellor, as being the only person competent to take action.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYI understand that the Lord Chancellor has no jurisdiction over these gentlemen.
MR. JOHN MORLEYThe hon. Member is perfectly right. What I was going to say in answer to the question was that the Lord Chancellor had nothing whatever to do with the matter. I was going to add, and I may perhaps now state, that I have told Colonel Longbourne that it is not satisfactory that these two reports should have been made, and that it was to be much regretted that in the first instance he stated that there was no bailiff on the Bench, whereas he ought to have stated that another person employed in the office was present.
§ MR. D. SHEEHY (Galway, S.)May I ask whether in the first answer given to the right hon. Gentleman, Colonel Longbourne did not intend to convey that this bailiff was not sitting on the Bench, but standing on the Bench according to custom?
MR. J. MORLEYI do not think I can say anything more than I have already stated. Colonel Longbourne, in the first instance, made an incorrect statement, and, on further inquiry, he set it right; and I think it is to be regretted that he made the statement in the first instance.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYMay I ask whether, in view of the desirability of this gentleman possessing the confidence of the peasants among whom he administers justice, the right hon. Gentleman will at least remove him from the place where he has been caught in a deliberate lie?
MR. J. MORLEYI am sure my hon. Friend will agree that his expression is too harsh. As to the question of removing Colonel Longbourne, it is only a few weeks since he was sent to this district.
§ MR. J. ROSSIs it not the fact that the person about whom all this has arisen was merely a pupil in an agent's office?
MR. J. MORLEYYes, it is quite true that he had been a pupil, but it is true also that he has one occasion at least accompanied bailiffs in the performance of their duties. He is not a bailiff himself.
§ MR. SHEEHYMay I ask whether Colonel Longbourne has not been in this district for 15 months?
§ MR. W. REDMONDWas it not understood when this Government entered Office they undertook to make these gentlemen behave themselves?