§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to certain proceedings alleged to have taken place at Belfast; and, if not, will he cause inquiry to be made into the merits of the case, viz.: that Mr. Samuel Black was in the year 1878, with the approval (pursuant to the statute) of the Lord Lieutenant, appointed by the Corporation of Belfast to the joint office of town clerk and solicitor of the Corporation at a salary of £2,000 sterling per year; that the said town clerk afterwards claimed payment from the Corporation of the moneys paid by him to his Dublin agent, in addition to his salary, and the Corporation did pay same; that the matter was brought before the Local Government Board, on behalf of the ratepayers, who directed their auditor to disallow such payment, which the auditor accordingly did; that the Corporation brought the 1164 matter before the Court of Queen's Bench by certiorari, and, after two days' argument by counsel on behalf of the Corporation and the Local Government Board, the Court pronounced judgment on the 23rd February 1881, declaring the said payments to be illegal, as they were included in the salary paid to the town clerk, and that the auditor was quite right in surcharging the same on the members of the Corporation; that, notwithstanding the said judgment of the said Court of Queen's Bench, the Corporation at their meeting, on the 1st January 1886, passed the following Resolution, "That the town clerk's outlay shall include his Dublin agent's allowance for doing the work of the Corporation;" and, if these allegations are substantially correct, will he, as official head of the said Board, state what action the Board will adopt for the purpose of supporting the judgment of Her Majesty's Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland, and the authority of the Local Government Board?
§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY) (Newcastle-on-Tyne)I have no information as to the Corporation having adopted the Resolution on the 1st January, 1886, mentioned in the Question. Subject to the fact that the salary was fixed at £1,750, and not £2,000, I believe the statements of the hon. Member are substantially correct. I am advised that if the Corporation has by any resolution sanctioned a payment which the Court of Queen's Bench declared to be illegal, it will be the duty of the Auditor of the Local Government Board, at his audit, to surcharge them.