§ 5. Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary if he is now in a position to state the name of the valuer on whose valuation the Government have paid £63,000 of public money to the "Freeman's Journal," Limited, for destruction of property which that company itself in its annual financial statement preceding the insurrection valued at £31,000; whether in any case other than that of this newspaper the estimate of the claimant's valuer was so closely adopted without reference to other evidence of value; and, if he still refuses to allow an independent examination of the particulars of this case, will he say why?
§ Mr. GINNELLWill the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question: If he refuses an independent examination of these particulars, why?
§ Mr. GINNELLWill the right hon. Gentleman allow an independent examination of these particulars, and, if not, why?
§ Mr. GINNELLBecause you dare not?
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYIs it the case that loss of profit has been allowed in this case, whereas in the case of all the other Dublin shopkeepers who have suffered loss of profit has not been taken into account? There is considerable feeling amongst Irish shopkeepers that they have been discriminated against if the figures given by the hon. Member are correct.
§ Mr. DUKEI looked into the matter very closely, and I am satisfied that the proprietors of this journal have been dealt with in precisely the same way and on precisely the same lines as every other applicant. If necessary, I have not the least objection to get the papers and show them to my hon. and learned Friend if he thinks there has been discrimination.
§ Mr. HEALYThe shopkeepers of Dublin undoubtedly feel strongly on the subject, and I should be much obliged if the right hon. Gentleman would investigate the matter a little further.
§ Mr. DUKEIf I am asked to look further into the matter and see if there has been discrimination, although I am satisfied there has not been, I cannot refuse the request.