§ MR. FORWOOD (Lancashire, Ormskirk)I beg to ask the Postmaster General if his attention has been called to the fact that the mails brought by the Cunard steamer Etruria, and landed at Queenstown at 7 p.m. on Friday, the 7th April, were delivered at Liverpool at 10 a.m. on the 8th April, in time for replies being made to the correspondence by the outgoing steamer leaving Liverpool on that date; and whether, in view of the accelerated railway service from Queenstown, and the employment of additional fast steamers by the Cunard Company, he will request the United States 'Postmaster General to forward correspondence for Liverpool and the North of England by this line of vessels instead of by the vessels now sailing under the United States Flag from New York to Southampton?
§ MR. A. MORLEYIt is a fact that the Etruria, which left New York at 7.4 a.m. on the 1st instant, landed mails for all parts of the United Kingdom at Queenstown at 7 p.m. on Friday, the 7th, and that correspondence was delivered at Liverpool during the forenoon of Saturday, the 8th. I would refer the right hon. Member to the answers which I gave to several questions on the 10th of last month, and I may say that the results 200 obtained are still under careful observation. I would point out, however, that the early arrival of mails by the Etruria would not justify mo in making the request suggested in the question, as there are cases in which American mails when sent by the Southampton line arrive earlier than would be the case if kept back for the departure of the next steamer for Queenstown. For example, the International Company's steamer Chester left New York on the 1st instant several hours later than the Etruria; and by that time there was a considerable mass of fresh correspondence for this country which the Chester brought to Southampton, arriving on the 11th instant. This correspondence was delivered considerably earlier than it would have been if it had been kept, as proposed by the right hon. Member, for the Teutonic, which arrived at Queenstown yesterday.
MR. FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick)I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board has received from Messrs. Joseph Delahunt and Patrick W. Corrigan, candidates at the recent election for Guardians of the Poor for Filzwilliam Ward of the City of Dublin, a letter stating that the Returning Officer in breach of his undertaking to consider objections to claims to vote when the contentious papers had been disposed of, refused to do so; that the Returning Officer refused to count the votes of the occupiers of the artizans' dwellings in the ward who were rated and taxes paid; and that some of the papers after being lodged were tampered with in regard to certain interests; and what reply, if any, has been given, and failing satisfactory explanation, will an inquiry be directed with a view, if necessary, of having a new election?
§ *MR. KENNY (Dublin, St. Stephen's Green)Is it not a fact that these taxes were not paid until after the votes had been given?
MR. FIELDAnd may I ask if under the law a period of six months is allowed, and that in this case it had not expired?
§ *THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,) Newcastle-upon-TyneI am informed that the Local government Board have received from the gentleman named a letter containing complaints against the action of the Returning Officer of the nature re- 201 ferred to. The letter was sent to the Returning Officer, who states that he did not give the undertaking alleged in the question, but that on the evening of the 5th instant he announced that he would give judgment in certain specified cases on the following morning, and then proceed to count. To this arrangement, he states, he strictly adhered. On the 18th March a large number of occupiers of artizans' dwellings were struck off the lists by order of the Collector General as "not rated," and on the 5th instant 71 such occupiers were again placed on the rate book as having paid rates on that date, but the time for voting having expired the Returning Officer refused to allow votes to he recorded for these persons, He states that in his opinion there is no foundation for the charge that voting papers were tampered with in his office. The Local Government Board propose to send a copy of the Returning Officer's observations to Messrs. Delahunt and Corrigan; they do not at present see that any sufficient reason exists for ordering an inquiry into the matter.