HC Deb 01 December 1884 vol 294 cc369-70
MR. W. J. CORBET

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If, as President of the Local Government Board, he is aware of the charge brought by Peter Gibson, Arklow, against the medical officer of the district, Dr. Halpin; whether the charge is that Dr. Halpin, when called to attend Gibson's wife in her confinement, stayed but a short time, and went away, leaving an inexperienced person in attendance; whether he had to be sent for again, and whether the child's life was lost through the delay; whether, at an inquiry held by the dispensary committee, of which Lord Carysfort and his agent, Mr. Taylor, are members, a resolution was passed by a majority of two votes acquitting Dr. Halpin of blame; whether, on that occasion, Lord Carysfort, as chairman, gave two votes, and whether it has not been decided that he acted illegally in so doing; and, whether he will grant a full inquiry into all the circumstances of the case, or else lay the notes taken by the shorthand writer at the inquiry of the Dispensary Committee, the Correspondence between the Committee and the Rathdrum Board of Guardians, and any Correspondence that has taken place with the Local Government Board, upon the Table?

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

The charge preferred by Peter Gibson against Dr. Halpin was as stated; and the Committee of Management of the Arklow Dispensary District, to whom he is responsible for the due performance of his duties, inquired into the matter at a special meeting held for the purpose on the 21st of August last. The complaint and Dr. Halpin's explanation were considered, several witnesses were examined, and a resolution was carried to the effect that the Committee did not think that there had been any culpable neglect on the part of Dr. Halpin. The hon. Member has been misinformed as to the Chairman, Lord Carysfort, having given two votes on this resolution. There were 12 members present, including the Chairman, and the resolution was carried by a majority of 7 to 5. There does not appear to be any necessity for further inquiry, or for the production of the Correspondence.