§ Mr. O'SHEEasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that John Reynolds, whose application for a labourer's cottage on the farm of Michael Quin, in Lismore union, was rejected by the Local Government Board's inspector, was admitted by the inspector. to be entitled under the Labourers Acts as being a rural worker; that Mr. Quin, the farmer, gave evidence at the public inquiry in favour of John 1359W Reynolds; that Colonel Grove White, who lives 60 miles away, instructed his solicitor to oppose the cottage; what is the ground for the allegation that Colonel Grove White opposed the cottage with the consent of Mr. Quin; whether he is aware that the sites committee of the rural council fixed the site, with the assent of Mr. Quin, the occupier, about 100 yards from a public-house; that John Reynolds desired to have the site fixed at the other end of the field selected by the sites committee, which is more remote from the public-house; that the site suggested by the sites committee is in a different town-land and on a different estate from the public-house; that John Reynolds had got his representation for the erection of the cottage on Mr. Quin's farm signed by Mr. Quin prior to the establishment of the public-house; that the latter has only been about eight years licensed; whether an inspector of the Local Government Board may hold under the Labourers Acts that the existence of a public-house in any locality is sufficient reason for refusal to pass representations for cottages in that locality; whether the house in which John Reynolds now resides with his large family is unsanitary; and how is it that Colonel Grove White, who is neither the owner nor occupier affected, got notice of the inspector's visit of inspection though the district councillors for the division got no notice
§ Mr. CHERRYNo such admission as that mentioned in the first part of the question seems to have been made by the inspector at the local inquiry. The statements as to the action of Mr. Quin and Colonel White are correct. Mr. Quin, as stated in the reply to the question asked by the hon. Member on 1st April last, consented to the taking of a site on his holding. It was not alleged that he consented to Colonel White's opposition. I have no means of knowing what took place with regard to the selection of the site before the council formulated their improvement scheme, but I am informed that the site in eluded in the scheme is almost exactly opposite the public - house referred to. I cannot say when that public-house was licensed, but I understand that it is not likely that the representation for the cottage can have been signed more than eight years ago, as suggested. The inspector made no general ruling with respect to the proximity of sites to public-houses. In the case in question the site1360W is opposite a public-house, which might reasonably have been considered undesirable. As already stated, the representation was not made on the ground of the unfitness of the existing house occupied by Reynolds. Colonel White was returned in the council's scheme as the owner of the site, and as such was served with notice under section 7 of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1383, and lie was apprised of the inspector's visit by the council's engineer. Notice is not sent to the local district councillors in such cases.