§ MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, 1838 Whether it is the fact that the medical officer of the Oldcastle Union, county Meath, was suspended by a majority of 17 to 6, because of a number of serious charges; whether a sworn inquiry was held, and the doctor admitted on oath the existence of a number of the abuses complained of; whether the Local Government Board, notwithstanding, removed the suspension, and confirmed the doctor in office; whether the Guardians thereupon, by a majority of 17 to 6, declared that they had no confidence whatever in the medical officer, and that he should be called upon to resign by the Local Government Board; and, whether it is intended to allow this Gentleman to retain his post in the face of the protest of the Guardians?
§ MR. TREVELYANSir, the medical officer was suspended upon grounds which, in the opinion of the Local Government Board, did not justify that step. A sworn inquiry has been held into the charges made against him, the two first of which were very trivial. The third was, that he had acted disrespectfully to the Guardians, in employing, as an infirmary attendant, a woman whom they had directed should be placed in the ward for women of bad character. It appears that this woman had been specially trained to attend midwifery cases; and it was in this way, and for that reason, the doctor employed her. He swore that, in doing so, he meant no disrespect to the Guardians, and the Inspector is of opinion that he was actuated by motives of humanity. The Local Government Board consider that, in employing this woman in the infirmary, he committed an error of judgment; but they think that the case is sufficiently met by an expression of their opinion that he had done wrong, and that the facts elicited did not afford sufficient grounds for the dismissal of an officer who had served efficiently for over 33 years. The Board also consider that, in this case, there was a misuse of the power of suspension which is given to. Guardians, to enable them to deal with cases of emergency or gross misconduct, pending inquiry and action by the Local Government Board. It is true that the Guardians have, since the inquiry, requested the Local Government Board to call on the medical officer to resign; but the Board are not prepared to do so, merely in consequence of 1839 the facts elicited at the recent inquiry, although they are willing to give due weight to any further complaint which may be made with respect to transactions not already investigated and disposed of.
§ MR. HEALYasked, would not this medical officer now come under the operation of the new Superannuation Bill, as one of the persons to whom the Guardians would be compelled to give a pension, although they had resolved upon dismissing him by 17 votes to 6?
§ MR. TREVELYAN, in reply, said, that he would, if the reasons urged for giving him a pension were approved by the Local Government Board. It would be a gross injustice to deprive an officer of 33 years' standing of a pension on the grounds stated.