§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)
asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Is it the fact that 150 police have been employed collecting poor rates in New Ross Union, or what number have been so employed; is it true that many ratepayers distrained upon were never asked for the rates till the police seized; is it the case that the cost of the police in this work is estimated at £250, while the amount collected by them was only about £30; if not, what are the relative figures; did Mr. Wall, one of the Vice Guardians, sent down to supersede the elected Board, resign, and why; when it is intended to allow a new Board to be elected to conduct the affairs of the union; and, in the case of the suspension of the Carrick-on-Suir Board, in 1881–2, did the Local Government Board withdraw the Vice Guardians after the expiry of the year of office of the suspended Guardians?
§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.)
The police were employed in protecting the poor rate collector in the New Ross Union, who reports that it is not a fact that he distrained without having given previous notice for the rates. The amount realized was £80, not £30, as stated in the Question. The cost was about £127. It is true that Mr. Wall, one of the Vice Guardians, resigned. I do not feel called upon to state his reasons for taking that step. The Local Government Board do not feel that they would be justified at 214 present in authorizing the election of Guardians. They cannot say when they may be able to do so. In The Carrick-on-Suir case, the Local Government Board were able to allow The Guardians to be re-appointed in about eight months after the dissolution.
§ MR. T. M. HEALY
asked, whether the Local Government Board had any objection to examination into the question whether there was any ground for supposing that a new Board, newly elected, would persist in the alleged misconduct?
§ [Reply inaudible.]