§ MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN (Monaghan, N.)I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether it has come to his knowledge 160 that nine Poor Law Guardians returned to the Medway Board were elected by forged election papers, and that 180 of such forgeries have been detected; that 68 of these were brought to the notice of the Returning Officer before the declaration of the poll, and by him admitted to be forgeries; whether he is aware that many of the votes so forged were in the names of ratepayers who were known to be dead or to have left the district; that these papers, to the number of 68, were returned as undelivered to the Returning Officer and by him locked in a safe, from which they were abstracted and forged, and presented; and whether, under all the circumstances, he proposes to institute an inquiry to test the legality of the election of the nine Guardians, and bring the forgers to justice?
§ *MR. RITCHIEThe only communication which the Local Government Board have received on this subject is one from a solicitor who, on behalf of certain candidates who were defeated at the recent election of Guardians, applied to the Board to direct an inquiry, and alleged that the election was conducted in a loose and illegal fashion, resulting in a number of voting papers being purloined and at least 85 being forged. The Board have pointed out, in reply, that they are only empowered to decide questions as to the validity of elections of Guardians, where the right of any person to act as a Guardian is formally submitted to them for their determination under the provisions of the Poor Law Amendment Act, 1842. The Board have stated what information they require for the purpose of such an appeal. If an appeal is received by the Board, and it should appear that there is ground for contention that votes have been lost to particular candidates, or allowed to other candidates, in consequence of irregularities in connection with the voting papers, and that the result of the election has been thereby affected, the Board, before arriving at a decision on the appeal, would, if there were any dispute as to the facts, direct a local inquiry by one of their Inspectors. As regards the suggestion in the question that an inquiry by the Board is necessary for the purpose of bringing the forgers of voting papers to 161 justice, I must point out that the forging of a voting paper is a criminal offence, and that no action on the part of the Board is necessary to enable any person to institute criminal proceedings against any individual who is alleged to have been guilty of the offence.
§ MR. PATRICK O'BRIENIs it not in the power of the Local Government Board to make an inquiry?
§ *MR. RITCHIEI have stated under what conditions the Board consider it their duty to investigate such a case. If the Board were to examine on oath charges against persons for forgery of papers it would be contrary to the usual practice, and persons might afterwards be prosecuted for forgery alleged to have been committed, and their case would be prejudiced by the examination by the Local Government Board.
§ MR. PATRICK O'BRIENThe Clerk of the Union might be examined as to how the papers left his custody: they could not have been taken without his knowledge.
§ *MR. RITCHIEIf representation is made to the Board that primâ facie evidence exists as to the irregularity, then it will be for the Board to direct an inquiry, and then, no doubt, it will be desirable and necessary to examine the Clerk.