§ MR. LEWISasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether it is the fact that the clerk to the Londonderry Union has reported to the guardians that the list of borough voters made out by him contains over 7,000 names, or nearly one-fourth of the entire population of men, women, and children in the borough; that a third or more of these have no qualification, as being occupiers of lodgings, or for a few months only, or as being minors; that he had no power, in the ease of borough lists, to mark "objected" against their names; that leading counsel had advised that, though he knew of the disqualification in the large number of cases mentioned, he was bound to insert the names of all persons returned by householders on the form contained in the Schedule to the Franchise Act of 1884; and that, if such be the Law, there was nothing to prevent the registration agents returning 15,000 on the list instead of 7,000; whether the Law is as advised by counsel; and, whether the Government will introduce a Bill to prevent the great waste and expense caused by the accumulation of sham entries on the lists of voters under the present Law?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)I have been informed that the Clerk of the Londonderry Union has made a report to the Guardians containing substantially the statements referred to in the Question of the hon. and learned Member. I believe that the Clerk also stated in this report that it appeared to him that the overseers were not bound to take for granted the information contained in the requisition forms sent in, and that they ought not to place on the lists persons whom they knew to be disqualified. I confess that this coincides with my own view of the law; but as there appears to be a difference of legal opinion on the point, I am reluctant to express myself with confidence. Any legislation during the present Session would be ineffectual, and probably before Parliament meets next year there will be some authoritative statement of the law.