§ MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that Mr. Francis O'Gallagher, national school teacher, Gweedore, county Donegal, was recently arrested under the Coercion Act; whether the patron of the school (the Rev. James M'Fadden, P.P.) thereupon recommended that the arrested gentleman's brother (Mr. Denis O'Gallagher), who had on the 30th of June completed his course under the National Board as a second class monitor, and has passed a qualifying examination, should be appointed to succeed him as teacher; whether, in reply, the Board stated that—
They did not consider this teacher's brother a suitable person to have charge of the school,and further—That they declined to pronounce any opinion on the question of the restoration to the service of the Board as teacher of this school of Mr. F. O'Gallagher himselfupon his release; if the Government will state whether the reason that Mr. Denis O'Gallagher is considered an unsuitable person to have charge of the school is because of his brother's arrest on suspicion; and, if not, what is the reason; whether it is usual to refuse the nomination of the teachership to the patron of the school; and, whether the Board intend that all schoolmasters arrested under the Coercion Act shall, after their release, be debarred from further employment under the Board?
§ MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that the manager of the school wrote to say that Mr. O'Gallagher's brother was considered competent; but the result of 1894 his examination could not be known for some weeks. It was entirely at the discretion of the Board whether they appointed the persons recommended or not, and he did not think it right to interfere with that discretion. The managers had the right to appoint teachers, subject to the approval of the Board as to character and general qualification. He could not say what was the intention of the Board as to the schoolmasters who had been arrested under the Protection of Life and Property Act. He understood that the Board had not come to any decision on the point, and had, in fact, not considered it.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not answered the fifth part of the Question, which was, whether the Board could refuse a nomination?
§ MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, he believed there were instances of the Board having done so; but if the hon. Member would give notice of the Question, he would give a more definite answer.