said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether Mr. George Irwin, whose name appears on the Schedule to the Report of the City of Dublin Election Commission as having been a Freeman guilty of corrupt practices at that Election, is one of the Divisional Superintendents of the General Valuation Office; and, whether he is the same person who was removed some years ago from superintending the revision of the borough of Bandon, in consequence of a representation being made that, in the opinion of a large number of the inhabitants of that borough, his political feelings had interfered with his duties as revisor; and, if so, whether, considering that the elective franchise in Ireland is dependent on the valuation, it is desirable that Mr. Irwin should continue in charge of the revision of the valuation of a large portion of that Country?
, in reply, said, the name of Mr. George Irwin appeared in Schedule M of the Report of the Dublin Election Commission; as having been found guilty of aiding and abetting in the corrupt practices mentioned in Schedule A. That gentleman was the same person who was removed from the local administration, of the revision at Bandon some years ago, in consequence of a report he made as to the valuation of property. These facts formed serious grounds for the consideration of the Government whether it would be possible or justifiable to retain the gentleman in the position he now held. When the materials for forming a judgment on the case came to hand he would acquaint the hon. Member of the circumstance, so that he might repeat the Question.