§ MR. DAVID PLUNKET (Dublin University)I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Dr. Moffett was in October last called upon by the Irish Government to resign his offices as President of and Professor in the Queen's College, Galway, on the ground that the Order in Council of 15th August 1890, applied to him as holder of such offices; whether Dr. Moffett declined to tender his resignation, stating that he was advised by high legal authority, including 25 the late Law Officers of the Crown in Ireland, that the Order in Council did not apply to his case, and praying that an opportunity might be afforded to him of trying the question before a legal tribunal; whether, on the 24th of January of this year, a Queen's letter was sent to Dr. Moffett, dismissing him from his offices of President and Professor; whether before such letter takes effect (namely, on the 25th of next month), the Government will refer the question raised by Dr. Moffett to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; or, if they are not prepared to take that course, they will institute inquiry whether the case of Presidents and Professors of the Queen's Colleges is within the policy of the Order; and whether the Order in its present form ought to apply to such cases?
MR. J. MORLEYIn answer to the right hon. Gentleman, I have to say that the Government consider the proposed or suggested reference to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as impracticable. The technical possibility of such a reference is open to some doubt, and, even if it were otherwise, the Government consider that in any case to authorise or to institute such a reference would be to set a very bad precedent. But as there appears to me to be some question as to the policy of the Order, as distinguished from the terms of the Order, regarding which there is no doubt, the Lord Chancellor will examine into the merits of this question, and by the decision at which he arrives the Government will abide.
§ Mr. PLUNKETasked whether he was to understand that the whole question would be referred to the Lord Chancellor, with a view to ascertaining what were the real intentions of the Commission?
Mr. J. MORLEYsaid the Order in Council, though no doubt to some extent influenced by the report of the Commission, was an order of her Majesty; and, that being so, it could be examined by the Lord Chancellor without reference to the Ridley or any other Commission.
§ Mr. PLUNKETHow, then does the right hon. gentleman propose to throw light upon the intention of the Order?
Mr. J. MORLEYThe Order stands upon its own footing. No doubt the 26 Ridley Commission had an influence in the framing of that Order, but the Order itself is a document not to be interpreted by any other order.
§ Mr. PLUNKETasked how soon the right hon. gentleman would be able to obtain information on this subject.
§ Mr. T. SEXTON (Kerry, N.)asked whether there was to be a specific and definite question referred to the Lord Chancellor—namely, whether the Order applied to such an office as was held by Dr. Moffett.
Mr. J. MORLEYsaid the whole policy of the Order, and that was a comprehensive term, would be referred to the Lord Chancellor.
§ Mr. R. M. DANE (Fermanagh, N.)asked whether the Lord Chancellor had expressed the opinion that the order did not apply to offices of this description, and did not apply to Sir Thomas Brady?