§ MR. CAREW(for Mr. J. E. REDMOND) (Wexford, N.)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord 933 Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. J. G. Fitzgerald, A.B., T.C.D., who was appointed, on 1st November, 1854, an Inspector of National Schools, Ireland, was, on the 29th January, 1879, after a service of nearly 25 years, during which he frequently secured the strong approval of his official superiors, dismissed from his post, on a charge of making in his journal a false entry relative to a sum of 5s. 6d.; whether the gentlemen appointed by the National Board of Education (Ireland) to investigate this charge arrived at the conclusion that Mr. Fitzgerald was guilty, because of his inability to produce a voucher relative to the item referred to, which he had mislaid, being at the time in ill-health, and suffering from great mental depression; whether, when he subsequently found and produced said voucher, one of the two gentlemen who had originally investigated the charge recommended the Commissioners of National Education to grant a re-investigation of his case; whether he could state at whose instance the re-investigation was refused; and, whether, inasmuch as Mr. Fitzgerald has since (as shown by the Papers relative to his case laid upon the Table of the House on the 30th May, 1886) proved his innocence of the charge made against him, and considering the terrible injury inflicted on Mr. Fitzgerald by his dismissal, whereby he is left in absolute want, he will grant an inquiry into all the facts of the case, and afford Mr. Fitzgerald the opportunity he has so long sought of clearing his character?
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) (Kent, Isle of Thanet)said: the hon. Member will find in Parliamentary Paper No. 33 of Session 2, 1886, a full statement of all the circumstances connected with Mr. J. G. Fitzgerald's dismissal. The present Government agree with the decision come to by successive Governments that this is not a case calling for further inquiry.
§ MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.)asked, whether it was not a fact that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Under Secretary was one of the deputation which waited on the right hon. Member for Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman), when Chief Secretary, and requested him to grant an inquiry into the case of Mr. Fitzgerald?
§ COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he was a member of that deputation; but further acquaintance with the case showed him that the question of the voucher was not the one on which the Commissioners had acted.
§ DR. KENNY (Cork, S.)asked, whether it was not a fact that one of the Inspectors who had originally investigated the charge recommended a re-investigation, and stated he would have given a different decision if further evidence subsequently produced by Mr. Fitzgerald had been before him?
§ COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he understood that was not so.
§ MR. SEXTONasked, whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was aware that a case had lately turned up in Ireland where an Inspector under the National Board was found to have kept and used a horse and car of his own against the Rules, and charged the Commissioners the cost, and also charged for sleeping in hotels when he slept at home, and yet he was merely transferred from one district to another; and, whether, under these circumstances, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would ask the Board of Commissioners to consider the inequality of punishment between that case and the case of Mr. Fitzgerald?
§ COLONEL KING-HARMANreplied, that the only information he had of the matter was from a communication received from Mr. Fitzgerald himself, who seemed to think that his case ought to be re-opened because somebody else had done something wrong and had not been adequately punished.