§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £14,371, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the Chief Secretary in Dublin and London, and of the Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums."
§ MR. SLOAN (Belfast, S.) drew attention to the action of the Ballinasloe Asylum Committee in appointing to the post of medical superintendent the junior assistant, Dr. Kirwan, over the 1027 head of his senior Dr. Mills. Dr. Mills, who had been acting-superintendent for some four months after the death of Dr. Fletcher, and Dr. Kirwan, his junior assistant, were the only two candidates for the post, and when the applications were being considered by the asylum committee, the chairman, the Bishop of Galway, proposed that the post should be given to Dr. Kirwan, the gentleman who I seconded the proposition arguing that inasmuch as 96 per cent, of the inmates of the asylum were Roman Catholics the medical superintendent should also be a Roman Catholic. It was in the power of the Lord-Lieutenant to sanction or refuse to sanction the appointment made by the committee, and the question he desired to ask the Chief Secretary, a question which he previously put across the floor of the House without a satisfactory answer being returned, was for what reason the junior assistant had been promoted over the head of his senior whose qualifications were equal and whose ability was unquestioned. The answer previously given by the Chief Secretary was that the matter was being investigated and that no decision had yet been arrived at. He himself had discovered, however, that when the committee asked for the sanction of the Lord-Lieutenant to the appointment they had made, he wrote to ascertain their reasons for appointing the junior. The committee considered the matter and came to the conclusion that the Lord-Lieutenant had no right to ask for their reasons and therefore refused to give them. The Lord-Lieutenant had apparently acquiesced in this and had sanctioned the appointment. He contended that this appointment was purely the result of religious bigotry, and he wanted a categorical reply from the Chief Secretary to the Question. Was not Dr. Kirwan appointed to this post because he was a Roman Catholic and Dr. Mills was not? This was the work of the Catholic Association at Ballinasloe.
§ MR. MACVEAGH (Down, S.)said there was no Catholic Association at Ballinasloe.
§ MR. SLOANretorted that there were members of that organisation on the Ballinasloe Asylum Committee. [Cries 1028 of "No, there are not" and "Name one."] The Bishop of Galway was one. [Several IRISH MEMBERS: No he is not.]
§ MR. FLAVIN (Kerry, N.)Submitted that the hon. Member had no right to state what was not true when he was told it was not true.
An HON. MEMBER from the Unionist side here appealed to the Deputy-Chairman for a fair hearing for the hon. Member.
§ MR. SLOANsaid it was undeniable that the senior medical attendant of the Ballinasloe Asylum was repudiated because he was a Protestant. Only recently they had in Belfast a homily addressed to them by the Lord-Lieutenant on the necessity of showing tolerance, and whilst the Lord-Lieutenant was preaching tolerance to them he was allowing this act of intolerance in Ballinasloe. How could hon. Gentlemen opposite suppose that the Protestants of Ireland would consider the claims of Roman Catholics when they themselves acted in this way. He knew the Chief Secretary was not responsible in this matter, but he was the only person to whom complaints could be addressed in this House. The Lord-Lieutenant had a difficult task to perform, no doubt, but it was not made easier by showing favour to any particular Party, and in raising this question now no hon. Member would consider that he (Mr. Sloan) was out of place. To show the favour shown to Dr. Kirwan, he pointed out that while that gentleman was allowed to remove the British emblem (the Crown) from the stationery used in the asylum and substitute "On the people's service" for "On His Majesty's Service" on the envelopes, when Dr. Mills suspended an attendant, who was subsequently fined by a magistrate£5 for the offence, for maltreating a patient in the asylum the committee censured him, not openly, by reinstating the attendant Since then he was glad to say that as i the result of an inquiry that attendant had had to resign. In this case the Catholic Association had been supreme and bigotry and intolerance triumphant; in this case the Party opposite had proved themselves superior to Dublin Castle and the present Government; but he submitted this matter to the Committee in the hope that they would show 1029 their sense of the injustice that had been done by supporting him in the reduction he now moved. He moved that the Vote be reduced by the sum of£100.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceediag£14,271, be g anted for the said Service"—(Mr. Sloan.)
COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)said he did not see why the Ballinasloe Asylum should not be allowed to choose its own medical superintendent. The Lord-Lieutenant, after a full inquiry into the whole case, did not feel that a sufficiently strong case had been made out to overrule the decision of the committee of that asylum. The asylum was governed by a joint committee elected by the county councils of Galway and Roscommon, but the accusation which had been made was chiefly against the county of Galway. Dr. Mills was the head of the male lunatic department and Dr. Kirwan was at the head of the female lunatics, and their positions were as nearly as possible equal. The Lord-Lieutenant found that one of the doctors was two or three years senior, but he did not say that the committee had acted from a religious point of view. He was glad that in this discussion no reflection had been made upon either of the candidates. As far as the position of the representatives of county Galway were concerned, they had acted simply in the interests of the ratepayers, because the voters were constantly grumbling about the heavy taxation inflicted upon the county, and asking why the asylum cost such a heap of money. There was a feeling that Dr. Mills had not attended the committee meetings as much as he ought to have done. He had no hesitation in stating, upon information he had received from one well acquainted with the facts, that if the case had been reversed, if Dr. Kirwan had been a Protestant and Dr. Mills a Catholic, the election would have gone the same way. The appointment made was well justified. That was a statement which he got from those who knew well the whole of the circumstances, and he believed that the reasons he had given very largely contributed to the majority in favour of Dr. Kirwan. He could not see why the Lord- 1030 Lieutenant should step in and override the opinion of the local committee. If such action did take place it might very well be asked, "Why give the Irish people local government at all?" The question raised by the hon. Member for South Belfast was a large one. If the question of religion was to be raised, where would they stop? Ninety-six per cent, of the people of Galway were Catholics and only 4 per cent, were Protestants, yet the Protestants had nearly four-fifths of the good appointments. He was informed that the appointment of Dr. Kirwan was I made on grounds of finance.
§ MR. SLOANsaid that reason had never been given by any member of the committee making the appointment.
COLONEL NOLANreplied that although that reason was not given, some of the speeches made by the committee were perhaps of the character indicated by the hon. Member. Some members of the committee disclaimed the question of religion altogether. He did not say that there was anything else against Dr. Mills, but he knew that Dr. Kirwan had been most attentive at the meetings of the finance committee.
§ COLONEL SAUNDERSON (Armagh, S.)said he always thought that Englishmen forgot one peculiar characteristic of Irishmen, and that was that they were born politicians. No matter in what position in the world they were placed, even in a lunatic asylum they exhibited this qualification. The hon. Member for South Belfast had raised the question of the appointment of the superintendent of an asylum. In England that would be I looked upon as a very humdrum and commonplace matter, but in Ireland it was impossible to divest it of questions which cropped up naturally in the Irish mind, because Irishmen were born politicians. Take the case of this asylum board—it was not elected by the lunatics, if it had been it would have been much more sensible—that board went down to the asylum, sat round a table, and, presided over by a Bishop, proceeded to deal with important matters. What was the business they transacted? They took the buttons off all the servants in the institution, because they were 1031 aggravated and annoyed, and possibly in a rage, when they saw one of these servants enter their august presence with buttons having on them an Irish harp, and over the harp a crown. At all hazards that crown must come off, and also the buttons. The first duty that Dr. Kirwan had to perform when he was elected superintendent was to interview the contractor in order to get these buttons put right by removing the crown. On the paper of the asylum was stamped the letters "O.H.M.S." Such a thing I could never be borne in a lunatic asylum in county Galway, and the asylum board had, he supposed at some expense, succeeded in erasing the objectionable letters, and replacing them by the letters "O.P.S.," which meant. On the People' s service". That satisfied the aspirations of this lunacy board. If they had confined themselves to that he would not have said a word. But there was a more important point. The hon. Member for South Belfast, who was a very valuable member of the Party to which he belonged, had spoken about the election of a superintendent. The two candidates were Dr. Mills and Dr. Kirwan. The former had been fourteen years in the service of the asylum, and the latter only seven years; and the former had acted as superintendent for fourteen months during the illness of the former superintendent. Moreover, the board, which was almost entirely composed of Roman Catholic members bore testimony to the great service Dr. Mills had rendered. Notwithstanding all these superior qualifications, Dr. Mills was passed over and Dr. Kirwan appointed. A member of the board said at the time that he supported Dr. Kirwan's candidature because he was a Roman Catholic, and, in fact, this religious consideration was the cause of Dr. Kirwan's appointment. The hon. and gallant Member or Galway disclaimed on the part of Dr. Kirwan's appointment anything of a religious or sectarian character.
§ COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid that was the impression he derived from the hon. and gallant Member's remarks.
COLONEL NOLANWhat I said was that a large portion of the members of 1032 the committee were not guided by religious considerations.
§ COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid that nobody could conceive that a committee deciding between two candidates, one with seven and the other with fourteen years service—the latter being a most distinguished medical practitioner, who had earned the respect of every man who knew him—would have chosen the junior candidate unless they had acted from religious motives. Ninenty 90 per cent, of the persons in the asylum were Roman Catholics, and it was as though the board had said to Dr. Mills, who had given up a large part of his life in the service of his country, "Thus far and no further shall you or any Protestant go." That was the tragedy of the matter. When he heard of this extremely unjust action of this asylum board, he wrote to His Excellency the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, but with very little effect. If the hon. and learned Member for Waterford saw a flagrant injustice done to one of his own religion he would make just such a representation to the Lord-Lieutenant.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid that if a friend of his or a co-religionist of his were passed over simply because of his religion he would not dream of interfering on that ground, and he had never made an appeal on that ground during the whole course of his public life.
§ COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid that all he could say was that the hon. and learned Member ought to interfere under such circumstances. This was not a ques of religion or bigotry, but of gross injustice. [An HON. MEMBER: - It is a question of a job.] He wrote to the Lord - Lieutenant, and he hoped that under the circumstances the appointment would not have been sanctioned. But his representations did not have the desired effect. Replying to a Question on the subject in the House, the Chief Secretary said the power of appointment was vested in the asylum committee, not in the Government. There was certain power in the Government to veto an appointment, but only in connection with matters of qualification. That was in April, but he did not think the Chief Secretary held that opinion now, 1033 because when he was questioned on the 21st of May he said that the right which rested with the Lord-Lieutenant of granting or withholding his concurrence was unconditional, and, in exercising that right, His Excellency discharged a duty imposed upon him by statute and his duty was not restricted to ascertaining whether the candidate appointed had the necessary qualifications, but the circumstances must be considered. The Lord-Lieutenant took advice in Ireland on the subject. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: Inspector Saunderson's.]
§ MR. FLAVINWhat qualification had your son for the job?
§ COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid this was a question where there were two Irishmen candidates for a vacancy, and one who had served seven years was put over the head of the other who had served twelve years, and the only reason was that he was a Roman Catholic. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: How long did your son serve?] This was an act of flagrant injustice to a man who naturally had every reason to believe in the circumstances that when a vacancy occurred he would be appointed. But no, because he was a Protestant he was passed over. [NATIONALIST cries of "No."] No one had a single word against the reputation of Dr. Kirwan or Dr. Mills, but Dr. Kirwan was chosen because it was said that 90 per cent of the lunatics were Roman Catholics. This was a far more important matter than the mere appointment of a superintendent of an Irish lunatic asylum. It showed the forces that were now at work in Ireland. Hon. Gentlemen opposite would not deny it. They had all heard of the Catholic Association which had for its purpose to secure for Roman Catholics all that could be obtained, and the boycotting of every Protestant not only from posts, but in trade. [NATIONALIST cries of "No."] That was^ the avowed object of the association, but when hon. Members found that it caused an outcry in the country undoubtedly they turned a cold shoulder on it. But the association still existed. A meeting of the Maynooth Union was addressed by the most Rev. Dr. Hogan who said that all that they wanted was an organisation with branches 1034 in every parish and district in the country well disciplined, well officered, and supplied with a fund to meet emergencies.
§ MR. HAYDEN (Roscommon, S.)I rise to order. I wish to know whether it is in order on the Chief Secretary's salary to discuss the proceedings of the Maynooth Union.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANI understood the right hon. Gentleman was discussing a union which is under the Vote.
§ MR. HAYDENI may explain that the Maynooth Union is a union of ex-students of Maynooth College, and that it in no way comes under this Vote.
§ COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid he bowed to that ruling. What he wanted to show was that at Ballinasloe an act of flagrant injustice had been done and that it was part of a general policy adopted in Ireland.
§ MR. WYNDHAMsaid if his hon. and gallant friend was attacking him in connection with a particular act at Ballinasloe Lunatic Asylum he should prefer that the charge should be stated as it was one to which he should like to reply.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANThat is lot the point. The right hon. Gentleman is quite in order in attacking the policy of the Chief Secretary or the Government, but I do not think he is in order in going into too much detail on minor points which do not directly affect the Chief Secretary.
§ COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid he believed that the Government had not appreciated the condition of affairs in Ireland and were not aware of the organisation which existed in that country, and which had its fruition at Ballinasloe. As the Chairman had ruled that that was lot in order he would not pursue the subject. The appointment made at Ballinasloe 1035 was a small affair to the House of Commons, but it was a great and sad affair to the man whose career had been blighted. This pointed the direction in which the wind blew in Ireland.
§ MR. FLAVINIt has been blowing in your direction for a long time.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANI hope hon. Gentlemen will not make these interruptions, otherwise it is impossible to carry on debate.
§ COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid peace could never be secured in Ireland except by the action of the people themselves, and the exercise of fair play and toleration on the part of the different religious bodies. No evidence that would stand sifting in that House could be brought against the Protestant minority showing that they had discarded a Roman Catholic simply because he was a Roman Catholic and had put a junior secretary over his head. A gulf dug by bigotry separated two religious classes and anyone who desired to keep that gulf open deserved ill of Ireland.
§ MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN (Kilkenny, N.)said that after listening to the speech of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman one would have imagined that they were not in the House of Commons, but in the Ballinasloe Lunatic Asylum. He had never in his experience of the House of Commons witnessed a more grotesque exhibition than that to which the House had just been treated. The facts of the case were that there was a vacancy in the lunatic asylum for a medical superintendent and there were two candidates. One was senior to the other; but the junior candidate had greater qualifications —[MINISTERIAL cries of "No "]— and he received the appointment. Dr. Kirwan had the special advantage of being a Galway man, and naturally the people of the county were inclined to give this appointment to the man whose qualifications exceeded those of the other candidate, and whose only limitation was that he was junior by two or three years. This board, which had been pilloried in all the Unionist papers in England, and had been held up to odium by the orators, of whom the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and his friends were the chief guides, 1036 had given an addition of salary to the gentleman who did not receive the appointment. That board was charged in this House with being a sort of bigoted institution for the persecution of Protestants. In another case they gave an advance of salary of£10 a year to Dr. Collins, a Protestant official, but the Local Government Board refused to sanction it. He would ask those who had listened to this tirade of abuse from the hon. and gallant-Gentleman—a tirade which they heard on every occasion when Irish questions were dealt with in this House—whether this farce should not end. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman was getting very old, almost as hoary as the jokes and witticisms which he had imposed on the House during the long period he had been the chief prop of foreign ascendancy in Ireland. Because the policy which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman supported was disappearing before the breath of a new and tolerant spirit, he and his Party came here and assailed a nation, and impeached the honour of the people. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman how many Roman Catholics held offices of trust under the Corporation of the City of Belfast, where one-third of the population were Roman Catholics. Was there a single appointment held there by a Catholic? Turning to the right hon. Gentleman's own constituency, he asked how many Catholics held positions of trust in Portadown. The hon. Member for South Antrim smiled. He would ask him how many Catholics held appointments in Lurgan, where half the population were Catholics. [AN HON. MEMBER: "It is not.] Yes, half the population of Lurgan were Catholics, and yet it was absolutely impossible for a Catholic to get an appointment in the gift of an elected body in that town. If the right hon. Gentleman was not responsible for this condition of things, he at least knew that it operated wherever his Party was placed in power, and he should be the last man to come here and impeach a public authority of the character of the Ballinasloe Board of Guardians, and attack a whole race for action which was perfectly excusable and absolutely defensible.
He rose not to discuss the Ballinasloe case but for the purpose of dealing 1037 with another matter, which involved an infamous attack on the tolerant spirit of the Catholics of Ireland. The attack had been based on a recent occurrence in that country. Had the hon. Member for South Antrim ever heard of Constable Anderson? From what had been appearing in the newspapers he expected the hon. Member to come there and impeach the Chief Secretary and the representatives of the Government in Ireland because of the dismissal and subsequent proceedings in connection with the case of Constable Anderson. The hon. Member had told them that a gross outrage against liberty had been perpetrated in that case.
§ MR. CHARLES CRAIG (Antrim, S.)Hear, hear!
§ MR. JOSEPH DEVLINsaid the hon. Member could say "Hear, hear," but why was he compelled to force him to defend the policeman who was said to be the victim of an organised conspiracy on the part of Catholics? Hon. Gentlemen opposite, by Questions and insinuations in that House, and by speeches on Orange platforms, and other arenas of public activity, had told them of the villainy of Sir Antony MacDonnell, of the part he had played in this tragedy or comedy, and of the outrageous way in which Anderson had been treated because he was a Protestant. Well, this was the House of Commons. This was not an Orange platform at Porta-down, nor was it the Custom House steps at Belfast. If hon. Members wished to impeach the Thief Secretary, this was the place to do it. Nationalist Members had no reason to defend the right hon. Gentleman, but with all his limitations he had always the courage to come there and face the music, and he was present that night to face even Orange music. Why did not the hon. Member for South Antrim, who had made a record for himself as a great statesman, rise and say in this House what he had stated outside?
§ MR. CHARLES CRAIGThe hon. Member is going to rise as soon as the hon. Gentleman has finished.
§ MR. JOSEPH DEVLINsaid that what he wanted to ask was why are hon. 1038 Gentlemen opposite hiding behind the Ballinasloe Lunatic Asylum? Why had not hon. Gentlemen opposite brought forward this case in the House as they had threatened to do? Why had his hon. friend the Member for South Tyrone—
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLDo not bring me into the case.
§ MR. JOSEPH DEVLINsaid he was very glad that there were some things that the hon. Member wanted to be out of. But the hon. Gentleman would permit him to refer, in a friendly way, to those who were hiding behind the Ballinasloe Lunatic Asylum. Why had hon. Gentlemen opposite shirked the responsibility of bringing the whole of this case before the House? He and his friends did not impeach Constable Anderson; he was impeached before a tribunal composed of policemen, and the prosecutor was a policeman. The result of that inquiry was that Constable Anderson was dismissed. He did not call in question the judgment of such a tribunal which said that Constable Anderson was guilty; but immediately hon. Gentlemen opposite proceeded to say that it was because Constable Anderson was a Protestant that he had been dismissed. The ho a. and gallant Member for North Armagh immediately proceeded to raise the war cry that a gross outrage had been committed, and a great wrong done to a worthy officer, and demanded that the constable should be reinstated, irrespective of the merits of the case. Neither he nor his friends desired to raise the question, although they knew that the constable had been rightly convicted. But hon. Gentlemen opposite immediately proceeded to say that the constable had been dismissed because he was a Protestant, and to denounce everyone connected with the case. He invited the hon. Member for South Antrim, who had taken a leading part in this matter, to demand a complete inquiry. The Chief Secretary had been attacked for reinstating this man. Why did those who attacked not formulate their charges? He was not there to attack Constable Anderson, but to discuss the merits of the case, and to protest with all his strength against this conspiracy to 1039 hold up the Irish people as bigots who would not allow Protestants to live in Ireland, and to malign his dear friend Father O'Hara— one of the most tolerant and generous-hearted Catholic priests in Ireland. This was not a case in which politics should be allowed to play any part. All he wanted was that the whole matter should be probed to the bottom.
§ MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid that there was not time to take up the case that evening [Cries of "Oh, oh !" from the IRISH Benches, and an HON. MEMBER: You run away from it.] He was very sorry that he could not oblige hon. Members opposite; but the representatives of the Government in charge of the Vote were aware of the reasons for not taking up the case that evening. On another day hon. Gentlemen would probably hear more of it than they wanted.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDDo I understand that a special day has been promised to hon. Members opposite for the discussion of this case?
§ MR. CHARLES CRAIGNo; the hon. Member, however, is well aware that a third day is to be given to the Irish Estimates, and that then Irish questions would be confined to those that could be raised on the Chief Secretary's salary. [Cries of "No, no !" from the IRISH Benches.]
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDNothing of the kind. You have lost your chance, and you know it.
§ MR. CHARLES CRAIGI can assure the hon. Gentleman we have no intention of running away.
§ MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid that he would not tackle it on that occasion. He would refer to it on the third day of the Irish Estimates. He proposed now to return to the salubrious town of Ballinasloe. He had a paper of 16th May which contained a full report of the convention held in that town, and no one who read it would deny that Dr. Kirwan was elected on purely religious grounds. This was a case which 1040 should be decided in the full light of day. The Lord-Lieutenant, acting on the advice either of the Chief Secretary or of the Under-Secretary, and in spite of the fact that the asylum committee refused to give any reasons for their superseding one official by another, confirmed this appointment. This was regrettable, for the case from start to finish had raised very bitter feeling in the North of Ireland. The Ulster Unionists were a small Party, but they would be wanting in their duty not only to their constituents, but to the country, if they failed to make this protest. The man who was responsible for so much of what they considered bad and unfair government in Ireland was the Under-Secretary. A permanent civil official had no right to act except on the orders of his superiors. The House should be told what connection Sir Antony MacDonnell had had with this case. What correspondence had passed between him and the Bishop of Raphoe or the Archbishop of Tuam? What were the considerations or motives which had decided either the Chief Secretary or the Under-Secretary to give consent to this abominable job?
§ MR. LONSDALEasked leave to say that, as secretary of the Irish Unionist Party, he made a distinct arrangement with the Chief Unionist Whip that a whole day should be given for the discussion of the Anderson case on the Chief Secretary's salary when Irish Estimates were again put down.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid that statement came upon him as a complete surprise, and was at variance with the statement made to him on behalf of the Government.
§ MR. WYNDHAMsaid that so far as he was acquainted with the arrangement for taking the Irish Votes, he thought the hon. Member for Mid Armagh must be in error in supposing that the Chief Government Whip had made such an astonishing promise as that a whole day was to be devoted to the discussion of a single case. He could not have given any undertaking of the kind.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid his relations with the Chief Secretary on matters of this kind had always been most 1041 pleasant and straightforward, and he should be sorry if any misunderstanding were to arise in the present instance. He had protested against the Vote for the Chief Secretary's salary being taken that night, but the right hon. Gentleman insisted on having an opportunity of defending himself against the personal attacks made upon him. Any under-standing with the Irish Unionists that the Vote should be put down again would be a gross breach of faith with him, of which he was sure neither the Chief Secretary nor the Chief Whip would be guilty.
§ MR. LONSDALEsaid there could be no question that the Chief Whip informed him that a day and a half would be given for the discussion of the Chief Secretary's salary, and on that understanding it was arranged that the Anderson case should not be raised that night, when there would not have been time for a full debate.
§ MR. WYNDHAMsaid that perhaps the hon. Gentleman would raise the question on the adjournment of the House, if there was any dispute between him and the Chief Whip. In the course of the debate reference had been made to the comedy and tragedy which went hand in hand in Ireland. That was so. In the speeches on both sides there were phrases that moved them to laughter and phrases which brought home to them how sad was the heritage of Ireland with respect to sectarian animosity. He appreciated the brilliant humour with which that tragedy had been relieved in the course of the debate, but he also felt the tragedy. The Chief Secretary intervening in such a debate must adopt a part which was tiresome because it was a part so detached from the passion and feelings which animated the Irish representatives on both sides of the House. What was the foundation of the charge which had been made in various quarters outside the House that he and that most distinguished public servant who was associated with him, Sir Antony MacDonnell, were actuated in the discharge of their duty by improper motives? The standing committee of 1042 an Irish county council recently appointed two officers—one a medical superintendent and the other an assistant medical officer. The first appointment they were competent to make under the Local Government Act, and the second appointment they were not competent to make, inasmuch as under the rules of that Act the officer must be unmarried, and the candidate they proposed to appoint was married. In the first case he—not Sir Antony MacDonnell —advised that it was the duty of the Unionist Minister of a Unionist Government to carry out in the spirit and the letter a Unionist Act of Parliament; in the second case, as the Minister responsible for the upholding of law in Ireland, he advised that the appointment was improper and could not be sanctioned To found on those cases the charge that the Irish Administration was animated by sectarian bigotry was really a deplorable use of imagination. He knew that in many parts of Ireland, and, by reflex action in this country, there were persons who honestly believed that there was a widespread movement to drive Protestants out of all positions public and private, in Ireland. He did not think it himself. He did not say that in no case were elected representative bodies actuated by such considerations; he knew they were. He was sorry for it. It would be far better if they had a single eye to the merits of the candidate. He deprecated going into motives in matters of this sort, but one was almost forced to do so. He had given to the section of the Act his un-biassed and careful consideration; he had consulted his legal advisers, and also the authors of the Act of 1898, and he was convinced that under Section 84 of the Local Government Act it was the duty of the committee of the county council to make this appointment, to appoint a properly qualified man, that the Lord-Lieutenant had the right to give or withhold his concurrence, and that that right was not limited to seeing that the statutory qualifications were fulfilled. But was that right so large as to amount to a repeal of the section, because the demand now made, however, practically amounted to this, that the Chief Secretary should repeal the section and should be the person to make the 1043 appointment? Could anyone imagine the President of the Local Government Board in England being asked to consider an appointment of this kind?
§ MR. SLOANasked the right hon. Gentleman to explain how it was then that the Lord-Lieutenant thought it right to ask for the reasons why the junior was elected over the senior.
§ MR. WYNDHAMsaid it was because he agreed that the selection of the junior officer was a somewhat startling fact, and it placed upon the Government the duty of satisfying themselves whether the statutory requirements were fulfilled inquiry was made, which satisfied them that the man actually selected was qualified, and then after careful consideration of the provision in the Act of 1898, he came to the conclusion which he. had announced. He found himself at difference on many points with the position taken up in the past by the Unionist Party in Ireland and their historical predecessors, but at the same time he could understand the view they had taken. For instance, some opposed Catholic Emancipation; he differed from them, but he could understand their position. Some thought the extension of the franchise a mistake; he differed from them, but he could understand their positition. Some thought the Local Government Act was a mistake; he differed from them, but he could understand their position. But when he came to the point that full local government had been given to Ireland in 1898, and that a legislative gift given with one hand should in administration be withdrawn by the other, he confessed he could not understand the position. By that method of procedure there would be 1044 given the worst form of local government that could be given to any country, a far worse form than was superseded in Ireland. If he attempted to do the duties which had been delegated to the county councils, it would cease altogether to be local government; it would be government by a British Minister whose time was largely occupied with branches of Irish and Imperial business. Was it conceivable that any man in his position who wished to do his duty would take on himself the responsibility, having to give attention to many other matters, of deciding why a local body selected one man for an appointment instead of another? His responsibility began and ended in seeing that the law had been fulfilled, and had not been broken by a body to whom powers had been delegated by Parliament.
§ MR. WILLIAM MOORE (Antrim, N.)said this was not merely a question of the appointment of a medical superintendent, it was a case which tested the principle whether under local government in Ireland a gentleman should by reason of his religion be prevented from enjoying the natural profits of his profession in the land of his birth. The responsibility did not rest altogether with the local body, for the Lord-Lieutenant had the power of approval, and without that approval the law made the election invalid. The Lord-Lieutenant had that controlling power that he might prevent injustice. A question of fact had to be considered. Did this appointment proceed on the lines of natural justice or of injustice? He submitted that it was a dereliction of duty on the part of the Lord-Lieutenant not to exercise his controlling power.
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.)called attention to the fact that under a rule of the House the Acts of the Lord- i Lieutenant could not be criticised except on a special Motion.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid that that was so, and the hon. Member would not be in order in pursuing the subject.
§ MR. WILLIAM MOOREsaid that what he was really criticising was the Chief Secretary and the advice he gave to the Lord-Lieutenant. The Irish Government were so startled by the appointment that they actually went through the form of asking for reasons. The board refused to give reasons, and yet the appointment was confirmed. Therefore, the Executive Government was responsible equally with the county council. This was not merely a question of what had happened at Ballinasloe; it was a question of how the Local Government Act was to be worked in remote country districts. Was the House going to allow the Local Government Act to be worked for the exclusion of Protestants? He contended that he and his friends were right to bring the case before the House. So long as he was a Member of the House ho should always, no matter what the consequences, assist his hon. friends in fastening blame on the Irish Executive where it rested with them.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDcomplained that the Chief Secretary, after overriding his protest and putting down his Vote on the ground that he might have the earliest opportunity of repelling a personal attack, had not alluded to the Anderson case. His silence gave colour to the suggestion that an arrangement had been made behind the backs of the Irish Party 1046 that the third day of the Irish Estimates should be devoted to that subject. Although the Anderson case had not been raised on the other side of the House, it had been raised by the hon. Member for Kilkenny, and in a way which gave the right hon. Gentleman the opportunity which he said he was seeking. That being so, and the Vote having been put down for the specific purpose, he thought they had reason to complain that the right hon. Gentleman should have sat down without saying a word on the matter. He would like to hear whether it was true that the Government had promised a third day of Irish Supply to enable these Gentlemen who had not opened this case to do so then. If that were so, away to the winds went the arrangement which had governed the management of Supply for a long time past, and it would be necessary to bring the matter before the House and the Prime Minister to see whether the pretence of taking Supply in the order which Members interested in it desired was to be kept up any longer, or whether in the case of Irish Supply arrangements were to be made in contravention of the understanding, and behind the backs of the Irish Party.
§ MR. WYNDHAMsaid he spoke till a quarter to twelve and could not deal with the Anderson case in a quarter of an hour when it had not been brought before him by those who had expressed their intention of making the attack. He was sorry it was not brought before him as he was perfectly prepared to deal with it.
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Sir A. ACLAND - HOOD, Somersetshire, Wellington)said the arrangement made 1047 was that the Land Commission and the Board of Works Votes should be taken at the afternoon sitting, and that the Chief Secretary's salary should be put down for nine o'clock. He understood then that it was the desire of Irish Unionist Members to discuss the case of Constable Anderson. On Monday night he was informed that the three hours of the evening sitting were not considered adequate for the discussion. He saw the Chairman of the Irish Unionist Party, who said he considered three hours sufficient for the discussion. He therefore came to the conclusion that the arrangement which had been announced to the House must be adhered to. It would be impossible to carry on the business of Supply unless arrangements, when made, were adhered to. A letter which had been published in the Press was sent to him, and in his reply, which he thought ought also to be published, after stating the arrangement which had been made and the necessity for carrying it out, he pointed out that in this session it was proposed to give not only an evening sitting to the Vote for the Chief Secretary's salary, but to put the Vote down as first Order on the last day of Irish Supply. In doing that he believed he was carrying out what the hon. and learned Member for Waterford asked him to do
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDOh, no; quite the contrary.
§ SIR A. ACLAND-HOODsaid his recollection of the conversation with the hon. and learned Member was that the Vote should be put down as first Order on the last day of Irish Supply because there were many questions in which hon. Members opposite were greatly interested 1048 and which they would wish to bring up on that Vote. But he made no suggestion that the case of Constable Anderson should be brought up. In fact, it was impossible for him to do anything of the kind, as it was within the absolute discretion of the Chairman to call on any Member he chose, and that Member could bring forward whatever matter he liked. He had given no pledge to either side as to the course the debate should take, but, in somewhat difficult circumstances, he had endeavoured to carry out his undertaking to the best of his ability.
§ MR. JOHN REDMOND rose to speak.
§ And, it being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.