§ MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true that, at the recent election of Poor Law Guardians for the Rathdrum Union, county Wicklow, voting papers were not in some cases distributed to persons entitled to vote whose political opinions were known to be on the popular side; whether it is true that voting papers were not supplied to two voters named Kane and Toner in the Newcastle Electoral Division of the Union; whether, when they went to the workhouse, a distance of fourteen miles, and applied for them, they were refused by the returning officer on the ground that the application was too late; whether such refusal was in accordance with the law; whether the returning officer, Mr. Bernard Manning, is the person who acted as returning officer in the election of a guardian for the Killiskey Electoral Division of same Union in 1882, when it was found on a scrutiny, that forty-seven votes were received by him in the Conservative interest in excess of the lawful number; and, whether, if it should appear that the returning officer has not properly discharged his duty on the present occasion, he will, as President of the Local Government Board in Ireland, take any and what steps to secure the holding of elections for Poor Law Guardians in Rathdrum Union in an impartial manner?
§ MR. TREVELYANI am informed that the only cases in which voting papers were not distributed were those of the two voters, Kane and Toner, named in the second paragraph of the Question, who are voters for the Kilcool Electoral Division. There was no failure to distribute papers in other parts of the Union. In the case of Messrs. Kane and Toner, the Returning Officer admits 1152 that they were accidentally omitted in the preparation of the lists. Due public notice was given of the days upon which any person who did not receive his paper should apply; but these two voters did not apply within the prescribed time, and the Returning Officer could not legally entertain their claims. Their votes could not have affected the election, as there was a considerable majority for the candidates returned. The Returning Officer is the same person who acted as Returning Officer for the same Union in 1882. I have already informed the hon. Member that after the sworn inquiry held in that case the Local Government Board considered that the errors he then made were the result of misinterpretation of the law, and that he had no intention to do anything wrong. There was no question of political partiality; for in another Electoral Division he allowed a larger number of excess votes to the Liberal candidates. In this case nothing has occurred to show that the election was not held in an impartial manner, and the Returning Officer emphatically denies being influenced by any political considerations.