MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is a fact that, previous to the late election of guardians for the Carmeen 259 Division of Cootehill Union, the name of David Blyzard, Esq. was erased on the Valuation Lists, and that the name of Vaughan Montgomery, Esq. was fraudulently written above same as a lessor of a Patrick M'Cabe, said Vaughan Montgomery having no interest therein; if the Local Government Board will inquire how and by whom such falsification of the Valuation Lists was effected; and, if means will be taken to prevent a repetition of any such offence?
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)The alteration in the Valuation Lists was made by the Valuation Department on the report of the Revising Valuer on statements made to him. The alteration was quite bonâ fide so far as the Revising Valuer was concerned. The Board of Guardians have power to make a correction when an erroneous or false statement is made. The Commissioner of Valuation, if applied to, would have investigated the matter and corrected any error. I am informed that the error originated in a mistake caused by reason of Patrick M'Cabe having a small holding under Mr. Montgomery, and also one under Mr. Blyzard, and that both were included in the holding valued at £19 10s., instead of being shown separately.
MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it has come under his notice that at the late election of Poor Law Guardian for the Cormeen Division of Cootehill Union, the clerk and returning officer illegally refused a voting paper to Catherine Fitzpatrick, and permitted Vaughan Montgomery, esquire, J.P. to be illegally put on the valuation lists as lessor of a Patrick M'Cabe, and allowed him a vote on his fraudulent claim; that Constable Anderson swore at inquiry he delivered into the hands of the clerk and returning officer 17 property votes of the townland of Latton, that Owen M'Cave, candidate, and his nominator, who were at the poll, swore the clerk and returning officer acknowledged their receipt, and though not forthcoming counted them as if present; that John Primrose, the declared guardian swore, said 17 votes were counted at the poll and that the clerk and returning officer did not object to their validity; that the clerk and returning officer swore at inquiry did not count them officially or make a return of them; that the said 260 clerk and returning officer in his statement to Local Government Board, paragraph 11, No. 14,583, swore he allowed four votes on a property in the townland of Carmeen, and that he swore at inquiry these were four of the said 17 property votes of the townland of Latton, which he swore at same inquiry he did not count officially; if this clerk is the same person who, in September 1879, fell under the notice of the Local Government Board, for fraudulent dealings in the coal contract for Cootehill Workhouse; and, if, considering the decision then come to by the Local Government Board and his conduct in the late election, as proved by his own contradictory testimony on oath, he will be continued as a fit and proper person to hold the office of clerk and returning officer?
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)It is the fact that the Clerk and Returning Officer disallowed the vote of Catherine Fitzpatrick. He did this in error. He also allowed Mr. Montgomery to vote as a lessor. There was nothing to show he was aware this claim was unfounded or fraudulent. Constable Anderson, at the inquiry, swore as stated in the second paragraph. Owen M'Cabe swore the Returning Officer admitted the receipt. The officer denied this on oath. The Returning Officer swore that no votes were recorded by him in respect of the missing papers. John Primrose swore that an arrangement was made between himself and the other candidate to count these votes. The Returning Officer swore no votes were recorded by him in respect of these papers. The Returning Officer did not allow four votes in respect of claims lodged by the Rev. Mr. O'Donnell, and an inquiry was held in 1879 into alleged misconduct of this same clerk, but no fraudulent dealings were proved. Nothing transpired in connection with the proceedings at the late election to lead the Local Government Board to the conclusion that the Returning Officer was unfit for his position, and they do not propose to remove him.