§ MR. TUITE (Westmeath, N.)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether a married woman, who has been a patient in the Mullingar District Lunatic Asylum for over three years, and who is still in that institution, is about to give birth to an illegitimate child; whether a secret inquiry has recently been held into the circumstances of the case, with the result that an engineer employed at the institution has been dismissed; whether the Government will take criminal proceedings not only against the engineer but also against those officials who, by their apparent neglect, are responsible for the outrage in question; and, if he would state by whom was the inquiry held, and will the evidence given thereat be laid upon the Table of the House?
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN) (Kent, Isle of Thanet)(who replied) said, he regretted to say the position of the patient was as stated in Question, There was no secret inquiry held. The only inquiry which was held was a cursory one by the Board of Governors, which happened to sit the day after the charge was adduced. Four days afterwards, one of the Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums visited the asylum and examined upon oath all persons who were in a position to elucidate the matter. The depositions taken by him were sent to the Executive of the Board of Governors. The engineer had been discharged. He (Colonel King-Harman) did not find that there was any charge of neglect against the officials. With regard to the engineer, he was advised that there was no ground for criminal proceedings.
§ MR. TUITEMay I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, whether he thinks that the ends of justice have been satisfied by the dismissal of the engineer; and, also if he is aware of the grounds upon which the Attorney General refused to prosecute, and, also, why the Press were excluded from the inquiry?
§ COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, the Question was one which should be addressed to the Law Officers.
§ MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.)asked, if it could be explained why the engineer had been dismissed from his employment, if there was no ground for believing him to be guilty and no ground for a criminal proceeding? As the Attorney General had come to the determination not to prosecute, would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman lay the evidence taken before the Inspector on the Table of the House, so that the House might be in possession of the information?
§ COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, it seemed to him that there was the strongest ground for believing that the charge against the engineer was not without foundation, and he was dismissed; but he questioned very much whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain a prosecution.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, he must again ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, whether he would lay the evidence before the House?
§ COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he could only repeat the answer he had already given, that the Question should be addressed to the Law Officers.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, he would raise the whole question on the Chief Secretary's Vote.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON) (Liverpool, Walton), who explained that he knew nothing about the case, said, there might be very great difficulty in sustaining a prosecution under the circumstances. But he would make inquiry, and if the evidence appeared to be such as would sustain a prosecution, a prosecution would be instituted.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, he was much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He wished to ask whether the Government admitted the authority of the "Queen v. Fletcher," in which the person accused was convicted of rape, on the ground that the woman was incapable of giving consent?
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, there was no doubt that if it could be proved that the woman was incapable of giving consent, a prosecution could be sustained. The difficulty was as to the degree.
§ MR. SEXTONasked, if the Government would view the matter in the light of the case which he had quoted?
§ MR. GIBSONCertainly.