§ MR. PAULTON (Durham, Bishop Auckland)asked the President of the Local Government Board, If he is aware that a Revising Barrister, Mr. Yarborough Anderson, has recently disqualified for the county franchise workmen who occupy their houses rent free during employment, and whether this decision is in accordance with the provisions of "The Local Government Act, 1888;" and, if not, whether, inasmuch as this decision so injuriously affects the great majority of the miners in the Bishop Auckland Division and other districts of Durham, the Government will take steps or facilitate an endeavour to remedy the injustice, especially in view of the fact that, during the Committee stage of the Bill, Ministers gave positive and distinct assurances that the wording and intention of the Bill obviated all danger of any doubt being cast on the 901 validity of the miners' claim in this respect?
§ THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)The law which applies to the registration of miners occupying houses rent free during their employment is set forth in the decision of the High Court in the case of "Smith v. Overseers of Seghill," which will be found in The Law Reports, 10 Q.B.D. I have no information as to the facts of the cases which are referred to in the Question which would enable me to express any opinion as to whether the action of the Revising Barrister was in accordance with the decision of the High Court in the case alluded to. If, however, there was any ground for dissatisfaction with his decision, there might have been an appeal to the High Court. The Government clearly have no power to interfere as regards the decision of the Revising Barrister in particular cases.