§ MR. MAURICE HEALYI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether Mr. England, Professor of Natural Philosophy in the Queen's College, Cork, was at the end of last year retired from that position under the "65 Rule," which at that date was considered to apply to the case of Queen's College Professors; (2) whether, since then, in the case of Dr. Moffatt, of Queen's College, Galway, it has been decided that the "65 Rule" does not apply to Queen's College Professorships; (3) what loss in salary Professor England has suffered by his compulsory retirement; and (4) whether it is intended to compensate him for the injury he has sustained by the mistaken application of the rule to his case?
§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,) Leeds, CentralMr. England was retired on December 22, 1894, when he had attained his 69th year of age and his 42nd year of service. The emoluments of his appointment were returned at £464. 10s., and he was awarded a pension of £309. 13s. 4d.—the maximum pension he could become entitled to. With regard to the second paragraph, the application of the Order as a matter of policy to the Queen's Colleges was referred to the late Lord Chancellor, who held that the regulations contained in 268 the Order "ought not" to apply to these colleges, and the Treasury have since appointed a Committee to inquire whether any, and what, age limit should be applied for compulsory retirement in them. I am not, however, aware that the Committee has yet made its Report. In reply to the last paragraph of the question, I am disposed to concur in the opinion expressed by my predecessor, who had a similar application before him, viz., that, under all the circumstances, the case presents no feature of hardship, and that it is not one in which any special recommendation could be made to the Treasury. ["Hear, hear!"]
§ MR. EDWARD CARSON (Dublin University)asked whether it was the fact that Professor England was compelled to retire under a rule which was subsequently held not to apply to his case?
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURNo, Sir, the rule does apply to his case.
§ MR. CARSONasked whether it had not been held in Dr. Moffatt's case that the rule did not apply?
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURNo, Sir, I believe not.
§ In answer to Mr. MAURICE HEALY.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid, that he believed that Dr. Moffatt was reinstated, and that the warrant was withdrawn in his case.
§ MR. MAURICE HEALYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to lay upon the Table the Report of the Commission dealing with the 65th Rule?
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid, that he would consider the matter.