§ MR. J. ROWLANDS (Finsbury, E.)
I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain why it is the rule in Ireland that working men in boroughs who are duly entitled to be put upon the Parliamentary registers, under the qualification for successive occupation, are compelled to send in a claim, and to attend the Revision Court and prove the said claim, whereas in English boroughs it is usual for the overseers to put on the register persons who are qualified by successive occupation; whether he is aware that the law on this subject was discussed by the Court of Appeal in Ireland in 1889, in the case of "Lyons v. Chambers," when it 1233 was decided that the law was the same in Ireland as in England; and whether the 1st sub-section of the 7th section and the 5th sub-section of the 8th section of "The Representation of the People Act, 1884," and the 3rd section of "The Parliamentary Registration Act, 1885," have been, as regards working men changing houses, put into operation in Ireland at all?
§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JACKSON,) Leeds, N.
So far as I am aware, there is no rule in Ireland under which working men in boroughs are compelled to send in a claim and attend at the Revision Court, and I may add there is no difference in the registration law between the case of working men and any other class of persons entitled to the franchise. The case of "Lyons v. Chambers" decided that a claim was unnecessary in the case of persons whose qualification depended upon successive occupation. I have no reason to suppose that the persons who are entrusted with the duty of administering or interpreting the Acts mentioned have been neglecting those duties.
§ MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)
In the case of "Lyon v. Chambers," did the Court of Appeal intimate that it was not a proper thing to put the person on the register without a claim?
§ MR. JACKSON
I cannot answer a general question of that kind. If the hon. Member will give me information as to any specific case I will make inquiries.