HC Deb 25 February 1886 vol 302 cc1197-8

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If his attention has been drawn to the manner in which the revision of the Dublin Port and Docks Board list of claims to vote has been made, such revision having been begun on the 23rd, instead of, as the Act directs, "as soon as possible after the first day of November," the result of which was that, before it was half gone through, the revising barrister closed the list, stating it should be signed on the 30th; and, if the present Irish authorities purpose taking steps to remedy the wrong so done to the traders and manufacturers of Dublin, by ordering a new revision and election?


Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that Question, I would like to ask whether it is a fact that 900 claims put forward by the Nationalist Party were disallowed; whether many of the so-called claimants had left without leaving their addresses; whether the persons advocating such claims were not liable under the 64th section of the Act of 1867 to fine; and, whether the term "traders and manufacturers of Dublin" could not at all be said to apply to these persons?


The hon. Member opposite must be aware that his Question is one which could not be answered without Notice. No representation whatever has been made to the Irish Government as to the manner in which the revision was carried out. Should any such representation be made, it will, of course, receive careful attention; but the hon. Member is no doubt aware that the Revising Barrister is appointed by the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, and is not under the control of Government.