MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, at the Extraordinary Presentment Sessions held in Letter-kenny, under "The Relief of Distress Act, 1880," the inspecting officer of the Board of Works cautioned the court as to the extent to which they might approve of public relief works for the parish of Raymunterdoney, inasmuch as a loan of £800 had been approved of to Mr. Wybrant Olpherts for the purpose of giving employment to the distressed people under the one per cent land improvement loan, and whether the sessions did not therefore limit the public works approved of in that locality; whether it is a fact that such a loan of £800 was only issued to the extent of £320, so that the contemplated employment was not given, although it was on the faith of the inspecting officer's statement that it was to be given that the public works were curtailed; whether it is a fact that even the £320 issued was not expended in giving the promised employment, and that no such drainage works, subsoiling, stone wall building, or fencing was carried out in the manner approved of, but that only a small portion of the sum issued was so expended, and very little of the employment promised to the poor given; whether it is true that the Land Improvement Inspector for the district, Mr. Edmund Murphy, was or is now the agent to the adjoining Ards estate, upon which the other loan specified in Parliamentary Return 263 was approved, and whether his son, an inexperienced young man with no special qualifications as a surveyor, was or is sub-agent upon the said Ards estate, and was also, or is, a Land Improvement inspector under the Board of Works; whether they are both magistrates of the same Petty Sessions district as Mr. Olpherts; whether either or both, father or son, have certified the approval or expenditure of all or any of the loans specified in said Return; and, if so, for what expenditure; whether Mr. Wybrant Olpherts had paid up to the date Return 263 was called for the amount then due upon the said one per cent loan; whether he will have an independent survey made, and an inquiry upon oath instituted as to the expendi- 831 ture under these loans; and, can he state what became of the difference between the sums issued and the sums expended?
§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir HENRY HOLLAND)(who replied) said: I will do my best to answer the numerous points raised in this Question, so far as they are known to the Department which I represent. I have no information as to the action of the Extraordinary Presentment Sessions, or as to the statements made to them. Only £320 was issued to Mr. Olpherts out of the sanctioned loan of £800, the reason being that the time allowed under the Act for execution of the works expired before a further instalment was applied for. Out of this smaller amount £285 was formally certified to have been expended, and the Board of Works are satisfied that the whole of the balance and more was expended on drainage and other works employing labour. But, as doubts have been thrown upon the correctness of this view, an officer of the Board will visit the place at an early date, and will form an independent judgment upon the facts. Mr. E. Murphy and Mr. J. F. Murphy were temporary Inspectors under the Relief of Distress Acts, but I believe are no longer in the service of the Board of Works. The former certified to the expenditure under the loans to Lord Leitrim and Mr. Olpherts; but I have no information as to other occupations of either gentleman. Mr. Olpherts has paid the rent-charge on account of his loan to the last gale day.
MR. O'BRIENWill the calculated date of the visit of the Board of Works representative be made known, so that the ratepayers may be able to be represented on the occasion of the inquiry.
§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURYYes, Sir; Notice shall be given.