§ MR. DANE (Fermanagh, N.)I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury how many out of the 1,448 eases which came before the Irish Board of Works for increases of rent in respect of the Lough Erne drainage, were in respect of holdings upon which judicial rents were not fixed; how many in respect of holdings upon which judicial rents have been fixed; what were the reasons in the 291 cases in which the Board declined jurisdiction that it did so; is there any objection on the part of the Board to lay upon the Table of the House the details of the expenditure of £210,000, £106,000 of which is in excess of the Estimate, and what is the reason why the accounts of this import ant work have not been published as by law prescribed; and whether, having regard to the expenditure of £106,000 over the Estimates, and the fact that no detailed accounts as prescribed by the statute have been published, the Treasury will consent to a sworn inquiry respecting the expenditure in excess?
§ SIR. J. T. HIBBERTJudicial rents had been fixed for 703 of the 1,448 holdings mentioned. The Board of Works declined jurisdiction (1) where judicial rents were fixed after the completion of the works, February 1887; (2) where cases were still under the consideration of the Laud Commission for fixing judicial rents; (3) in cases withdrawn he the proprietors at the time of hearing. The Board of Works is in no way bound or required to keep or publish any detailed accounts of expenditure; but the accounts have, as a matter of fact, been published by the Local Drainage Board, and I consider that no useful end would be served by laying the detailed accounts on the Table or by a sworn inquiry.