§ MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether complaints have reached him that Mr. Haynes, Clerk of the Bandon (County Cork) Poor Law Union, resides five miles from the offices of the Union, with his brothers, who are under police protection, and that he there keeps, during several days of the week, the rate books and other books belonging to the Union, to the inconvenience of the ratepayers; and whether he will be compelled to attend at his office daily for the prescribed number of hours, as laid down by the Local Government Board?
§ MR. MADDENThe Clerk of the Bandon Union reports that it is the case that he resides about five miles from the workhouse, at his mother's house, with his brothers, who are not under police protection. He states that it is not the case that he has kept the rate books or any other books of the Union at his residence to the inconvenience of the ratepayers. The general regulations of the Local Government Board defining the duties of the clerk of a Union do not prescribe any hours during which he must attend at his office, but he is bound under Section 9 of 6 & 7 Vict., c. 92, to permit persons affected by any rate in the Union to have access to the valuation whereon it was based, at all times between 10 o'clock in the forenoon on every day except Sundays. No complaints have been made to the Local Government Board as to inconvenience resulting from the situation of the clerk's present residence.
§ MR. FLYNNThe right hon. Gentleman says that no complaint has been made. I make a complaint now, and I ask him to ascertain whether it is not the fact that a number of ratepayers went to the office and requested to see the rate books, and that the Clerk declined to show them?
§ MR. MADDENI have no doubt that if any new matter is brought before the Local Government Board it will be inquired into.
§ MR. FLYNNI beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the action of Mr. Haynes, clerk of the Bandon (County Cork) Poor Law Union; whether he is aware that at a recent contest for the Guardianship of one of the Electoral Divisions, Mr. Haynes, acting as Returning Officer, refused to issue voting papers in connection with a number of claims appointing proxies by the nuns of the convent, though these were accurately signed and lodged in due course; also that he similarly refused to issue voting papers in the case of John Cummins & Sons, joint owners, though he issued them to Robinson & Sons, who are similarly circumstanced; and whether he will call upon Mr. Haynes for an explanation of the alleged circumstances?
§ MR. MADDENThe Returning Officer reports to the effect that, having doubts as to the ownership of the property out of which the nuns claim to vote, he took the steps required by the 26th Section of 6 and 7 Vict., c. 92, and the nuns, not having produced the necessary evidence, he was debarred from admitting them to vote. With regard to the case of John Cummins & Sons, they, as being a joint business company, were disqualified to vote themselves, and they had not qualified any officer on their behalf in the manner required by Section 86 of 1 & 2 Vict., c. 56. With respect to John and William Robinson, the Returning Officer states that he had no reason to doubt the legality of their claims.
§ MR. MADDENNo, Sir; it is not necessary to produce evidence.