§ MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN (Kilkenny, N.)On behalf of the hon. Member for East Mayo, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what evidence he had before him as to the identity of the woman examined by two medical men in Dublin, when he decided on the ground of the certificate signed by them to reinstate Constable Anderson in the Royal Irish Constabulary.
§ MR. WYNDHAMI entertained and I entertain no doubt as to the identity of the girl examined. The doctors, to whom inquiries were addressed yesterday, fully believe that she was the person concerned. I acted on a letter from Mr. Mannion, which enclosed their joint certificate.
§ MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)I beg to inform the right hon. Gentleman that that is not an answer at all. The right hon. Gentleman has told us he believes in the identity. The question is, what evidence had he before him as to the identity of this girl.
§ MR. WYNDHAMMy answer was that I had before me a letter from Mr. Mannion, a respectable solicitor, in which he enclosed a certificate by two doctors, one a medical doctor of Trinity College, and the other a licentiate of the Royal College of Physicians. I think that was sufficient ground on which to go. It may be right or it may be wrong, but there is no reason whatever to doubt the fact, and I really think in the interests of this girl it is rather hard that it should be suggested that she is again to take special steps in order to vindicate her honour.
§ MR. KILBRIDE (Kildare, S.)Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether Mr. Mannion holds any Crown appointment in the county [Cries of "Order" from the MINISTERIAL Benches].
§ MR. MACVEAGH (Down, S.)Was this gentleman solicitor for the policeman?
§ * MR. SPEAKEROrder, order!
§ MR. JOSEPH DEVLINOn behalf of the hon. Member for East Mayo, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the evidence before the police inquiry into the case of Constable Anderson was given on oath, and whether the witnesses were subjected to cross-examination; and whether he had any sworn evidence before him when he decided to reverse the decision of that inquiry; and what steps he took to test the value of the evidence on which he arrived at the decision to reinstate Constable Anderson.
§ MR. WYNDHAMThe inquiry was on oath, and the witnesses were cross-examined. The statements of their evidence, authenticated by their signatures, were before me when the decision to reinstate Anderson was arrived at. The Question does not accurately represent what took place. The finding of the Court of Inquiry was not reversed. Fresh evidence, in the shape of a joint certificate of two medical men resident in Dublin, was submitted to me and authenticated by a letter from Mr. Mannion, a solicitor of respectability, who had represented Anderson at the inquiry. This fresh evidence, of the truth and accuracy of which there is no reason whatever to doubt, threw a new light on the conduct of which Anderson was accused, and showed that it was capable of an innocent explanation. I then gave Anderson the benefit of the doubt raised by this new evidence.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDI am afraid the right hon. Gentleman has not grasped the point of the Question. The evidence in the Court of Inquiry was evidence on oath and subject to cross-examination. He has reversed the decision of that Court upon evidence not apparently given upon oath and not subject to cross-examination. Does he consider that a desirable and proper proceeding?
§ MR. WYNDHAMThe hon. Member is not seized of the facts as I am. It is within the discretion of the Crown to decide absolutely whether a person who is or is not guilty should remain in the Royal Irish Constabulary. The Crown is under no obligation to hold a Court of Inquiry in order to come to a determination, and when the Crown or I myself have before me evidence of that kind, it is quite within the discretion of the Executive to retain the services of the constable. The only point at issue is whether I was right in my discretion. If the hon. and learned Member is dissatisfied the matter can come up upon the Estimates.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDTo be quite clear upon this point are we to understand that the decision of a Court of Inquiry come to on sworn evidence is to be overridden and put on one side for evidence not taken upon oath?
§ * MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! That, it seems to me, is arguing the Question.
§ MR. JOSEPH DEVLINWill the right ton. Gentleman place upon the Table all the evidence upon which he acted in superseding this Court of Inquiry?
§ MR. WYNDHAMNo, Sir. This is a matter of discipline in a force of eight or nine thousand men. I have great confidence in the Inspector - General. I acted with him throughout. I am prepared to defend the action of the Inspector - General and myself if our conduct is impeached in this House.
§ MR. JOSEPH DEVLINIs there any precedent for the action the right hon. Gentleman has taken in this case?
§ * MR. SPEAKEROrder, order!
§ MR. MACVEAGHIs it a fact, as announced in the Belfast papers, that this constable was reinstated at the request of two Members of this House.
§ [No answer was returned.]
§ MR. JOSEPH DEVLINOn behalf of the hon. Member for East Mayo, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the authorities in Dublin Castle, when they considered the report of the police inquiry and decided on the dismissal of Constable Anderson, had before them the record of the constable; what was the nature of that record, and were they influenced in their decision by it; and why was Constable Anderson removed from Pullathomas by the county inspector.
§ MR. WYNDHAM. Yes, Sir; the constable's statement of service and conduct accompanied the report of the Court of Inquiry and the evidence of the witnesses examined. The statement showed that the constable had served in the force for seventeen and-a-quarter years; that he had received two favourable and no unfavourable records; that his county inspector entertained a good opinion of his previous conduct, and that he considered him an efficient, useful, and energetic policeman. The same county inspector who furnished this report, which 150 contained nothing adverse to Constable Anderson, had transferred the constable from Pullathomas to Kiltimagh, under the regulations of the service which permit county inspectors to transfer constables as they see fit, within their county, without reference to headquarters.
§ MR. JOSEPH DEVLINOn behalf of the hon. Member for East Mayo, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the statements that the dismissal of Constable Anderson was the result of Catholic bigotry and an instance of persecution of Protestants in Ireland; and whether, seeing that his dismissal was the result of police inquiry instituted on the initiation of the police authorities in Dublin, and in view of the amount of ill-feeling aroused by the statements made in connection with this case, he will consent to institute a full inquiry into all the circumstances of the case.
§ MR. WYNDHAMYes, Sir. I have seen such statements. On the other hand, the hon. Member almost seems to suggest that the constable was reinstated by me in deference to political pressure. I considered the proceedings of the Court and the medical certificate in conference with the Inspector-General. Upon that, and upon that alone, I recommended the Constable's reinstatement. In such cases, there is often, unhappily, a tendency to champion this or that view in accordance with religious or political sympathies and antipathies. In deciding whether a constable is or is not fitted to remain in the Royal Irish Constabulary, a matter absolutely within the discretion of the Crown, I disregard all such considerations. An inquiry would therefore be an inquiry into the decision at which I arrived. If the hon. Member thinks that I was wrong in recommending the constable's reinstatement he can criticise my conduct on the Estimates, when I shall be better able, if the House so desires, to go into the matter in greater detail.
§ MR. JOSEPH DEVLINMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer that portion of the Question in which he is asked was Constable Anderson's dismissal 151 a result of Catholic bigotry and an instance of the persecution of Protestants in Ireland.
§ MR. WYNDHAMI think I have answered that. [NATIONALIST cries of "No."] I have said that I have had regard only to the evidence before me. I paid no heed to the representations made either by one side or by the other as to whether this man was unfairly or too fairly treated. They did not operate in my mind in the least.
§ MR. JOSEPH DEVLINWas this persecution instituted at the request of any Catholic person?
§ * MR. SPEAKEROrder, order? That Question does not arise. The reference in the original Question is whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been called to the statements that the dismissal of Constable Anderson was the result of Catholic bigotry and an instance of persecution of Protestants in Ireland.
§ MR. JOSEPH DEVLINI want to repudiate this charge and ask the right hon. Gentleman to assist me in that repudiation. He knows the charge to be absolutely false.
§ * MR. SPEAKEROrder, order!
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDThe last line of the Question has not been answered. It asks "whether he will consent to institute a full inquiry into all the circumstances of the case," and, in view of the fact that the demand is made not only from the Nationalist side, but from the Unionist side also, and is supported by newspapers like the Irish Times, will the right hon. Gentleman grant such an inquiry into the whole case.
§ MR. WYNDHAMI think I have answered that. I cannot create a precedent in this matter. It is purely a case of discipline and one in which I am responsible to this House. I regret that imputations have been made by one side against the other, but I am no party to them and dismiss them entirely from my mind. I take the case from the disciplinary view, and on my action accept full responsibility to the House.
§ MR. JOSEPH DEVLINBut in view of the fact that this policeman was dismissed, and the evidence before the inquiry has been superseded, and also that there is a widespread demand for this fresh inquiry, will not the right hon. Gentleman assent to one?
§ * MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! I think this matter has been fully dealt with.