§ MR. ROBERT AMBROSE (Louth, S.)I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a Guardian of the poor of any union who during his term of office becomes contractor for such Union renders himself liable to forfeit £100, and that Mr. Moran, late candidate for the office of Poor Law Guardian of the 805 Westport Union, was contractor for the supply of bread to the workhouse whilst holding that office last year; and, whether he will direct Mr. Lynch, Local Government Board Inspector, who is at present holding a sworn Inquiry on Mr. Moran's behalf into the validity of the election for the Clogher Division of the Westport Union, to prosecute the said Guardian for his alleged offence?
MR. JOHN MORLEYOn the 3rd inst. I wrote to the hon. Gentleman in reference to this matter. Section 93 of the 1 and 2 Vic. cap. 56, provides that if a Guardian is concerned, directly or indirectly, in a contract for workhouse supplies whilst holding that office he renders himself liable to forfeit the sum of £100 "to any person who shall sue for the same." A complaint was made last year that the gentleman named in the question, who was then a Guardian, was concerned in a workhouse contract, but he denied the charge. The Local Government Board are advised that it would not be expedient to include in the scope of the present Inquiry an investigation into the charge referred to. The object of the present Inquiry is solely to determine the question which has been raised by Mr. Moran, as to whether his opponent at the recent election obtained a majority of votes. If he did his election will not be disturbed; and in the opinion of the Board it would not now be desirable to take sworn evidence on a matter which may hereafter form the subject of criminal proceedings.
§ MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN (Cork)said, he understood the Chief Secretary to say the fact was brought to the knowledge of the Local Government Board that this gentleman was a contractor while he was a Poor Law Guardian. Was it not the duty of the Inspector or the Board itself to investigate the matter and follow it up, and not be content with mere denials?
MR. J. MORLEYreplied that he did not know what the duties of the Local Government Board were in a matter of this kind. It was a delicate thing for them to interfere in connection with a case which had not properly come before them. But he would inquire whether there was any obligation cast upon them.
§ MR. W. O'BRIENsaid, he understood there was a sworn investigation 806 going on as to whether this gentleman ought not to be entitled to be declared elected. Was it not a fact that the Local Government Board Inspector declined to investigate at the same time a charge which, if established, would have completely disqualified this gentleman.
MR. J. MORLEYsaid, he was not sure that it would have disqualified him. But penalties might have been recovered, no doubt.