§ MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON (Kerry, W.)(for Mr. PINKERTON) (Galway) asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware of defalcations in connection with Ballymena Union, through the acts of the late clerk, F. A. Mathews, to the amount of £1,700; whether, before his appointment as clerk of the Union, he had been found guilty of dishonesty in his previous clerkships; whether the auditor (Major Studdart) always certified the accounts as being correct, and bonds of relieving officers as being produced, when, in point of fact, some of the sureties were dead; whether he is aware that a section of the Board are opposed to any inquiry, while other Guardians are in favour of an inquiry being held; whether the Local Government Board have been memorialized to grant a sworn investigation, and if he can state their reason for refusing to grant it; whether he is also aware that Mr. F. A. Mathews was High Constable, and that the office has since been filled by another nominee of the Grand Jury, without due notice, and without competition; and, whether, under the circumstances, he will order the Local Government Board to grant a sworn inquiry?
§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.)The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. Mr. Mathews held the office of clerk of Ballymena Union for a period of 42 years, having been elected in 1846. I have no information as to the alleged dishonesty on his part before his election. The accounts of the Union have been certified by Colonel Studdart, auditor, as correct down to the time he discovered the defalcations. At each audit of the accounts the bonds of the relieving officers were produced. Colonel Studdart is not aware that any of the sureties are dead. I have no knowledge as to a section of the Board of Guardians being opposed to any inquiry. The Guardians did adopt a Resolution asking for the holding of a sworn inquiry as to the entire business of the Union. The Local Government Board replied that if specific charges were preferred against any responsible officers they would consider the propriety of in- 522 stituting an inquiry. Mr. Mathews's defalcations are under investigation by a committee of the Guardians, assisted by the Local Government Board Inspector. If charges affecting any of the remaining officers of the Union are submitted to the Local Government Board the propriety of ordering a sworn inquiry will be considered.
§ MR. EDWARD HARRINGTONasked the Chief Secretary, how it was that the Local Government Board were so reluctant to take action in a case of this kind; whereas in the case of the Listowel Union they had of their own initiative taken action and held an inquiry? He asked, whether the difference in politics made any difference in the action of the Local Government Board?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the difference in politics made no difference in the action of the Board. He saw no sign of reluctance on the part of the Board to take necessary action.