§ MR. CRILLY (Mayo, N.)I beg to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the circumstances of the Poor Law election, held in March last, in the Bing-hamstown North Division of the Belmullet Union, on which occasion the opposing candidates were Mr. Peter O'Malley and Mr. W. G. Murphy, and the result of the election was that Mr. Murphy was declared to be returned by a majority of one; whether he is aware that, at the usual fortnightly Petty Sessions held in Belmullet, on Saturday the 10th instant, before Captain Perry, P.M., Mr. Home, P.M., and Mr. Walsh, J.P., a charge was brought against Mr. Murphy for "suppressing, forging, and destroying" voting papers during the progress of the election in question; that in two cases it was shown that Mr. Murphy had called at the houses of two electors, and that he had in one instance illegally 258 filled in, signed, and taken away the blank voting paper which had been handed to him, and that in the other he had taken away a second unfilled voting paper, and that after hearing the evidence the Magistrates unanimously convicted Mr. Murphy, and fined him £2 and costs, or in default of payment one month's imprisonment in Castlebar Gaol; a third case which stood against Mr. Murphy being withdrawn after an announcement by the Magistrates that they were unanimous on the two cases already heard; and whether seeing that Mr. Murphy's majority was only one in the election in March, and that he has been found guilty of resorting to illegal practices to secure that majority, it is the intention of the Local Government Board to allow him to retain his seat at the Belmullet Poor Law Board?
§ MR. MADDENMy attention has been called by the question of the hon. Member to the circumstances of the election referred to. I am informed that the facts are as stated in the second paragraph of the question, with the exception that it was not proved that Mr. Murphy had filled in and signed any voting paper. The offence of which Mr. Murphy was convicted is not one which disqualifies him from being elected to or sitting at the Board of Guardians, and, as neither of the voting papers in question was recorded for any candidate, the majority was not proved to have been affected by what occurred. The Local Government Board would not, as they are advised, have any legal grounds for preventing Mr. Murphy from retaining his seat at the Board.