§ MR. CHARLES CRAIGI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland on whose suggestion was the constitution of the Court to investigate for the second time the charges against Constable Anderson altered so as to include District Inspector Hetreed did Sir Antony MacDonnoll suggest, approve, or sanction this change; is District Inspector Hetreed the same officer who was formerly stationed in Limerick during the attacks made upon Dr. Long, and against whom complaints were made to the authorities that he had declined to afford adequate protection to the Protestants in Limerick; why was this officer specially sent from the depot to investigate this case; and who is responsible for the selection of this officer for such a duty.
§ MR. WYNDHAMThe Court, as originally constituted by the Inspector-General on 30th October, consisted of District Inspectors Berne and Gregory. Subsequently it came to the knowledge of the Inspector-General that Mr. Berne was on leave, and being unwilling to cause him expense and, inconvenience by requiring him to return before the completion of his leave, he selected another officer, Mr. Hetreed, in his stead, because, as he has informed me, Mr. Hetreed being at the depot where only a few recruits remained could more easily be spared than an officer in the country. Sir Antony MacDonnell was not consulted, and neither ho nor anyone else made any suggestions on a matter which was entirely for the Inspector-General. Mr. Hetreed was stationed in Limerick at the time of the attacks on Dr. Long, but I am not aware that complaints were made of the character mentioned in the Question. If made, they were not justified. I may observe that when Mr. Hetreed left Limerick in 1902 he was presented with an address subscribed to by persons of all religious denominations, including Dr. Long himself.
§ MR. CHARLES CRAIGI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any suggestions were made to the Inspector-General of Constabulary to hold a second inquiry into the case of Constable Anderson after his acquittal had been directed by his 487 county inspector and confirmed by the Deputy Inspector-General, Mr. Singleton; and, if so, by whom; to whom were the complaints of the Rev. Denis O'Hara, P.P, addressed, and did these complaints influence the authorities in their decision to hold a second inquiry; what grounds were suggested for reversing the findings of the previous inquiry; and did Sir Antony MacDonnell sanction or approve of such grounds, if any.
§ MR. WYNDHAMThere was no second Court of Inquiry. The first inquiry was an investigation, not on oath, ordered in August by Acting County-Inspector Monson, and carried out by District-Inspector Shankey. His report, together with the written statements taken by him from a number of persons, was submitted to the Inspector-General on the 5th September. On the 11th September Assistant Inspector-General Singleton, by direction of the Inspector-General, gave his decision, viz., that there was not sufficient cause for transferring Constable Anderson but that he might have a Court of Inquiry if he desired it. On 9th October County-Inspector Brooke, who in August saw no reason for transfer, having returned from leave, interviewed one of the persons, Carr, who subsequently gave evidence at the Court of Inquiry. He reported, "I have now seen him, and from what he tells me there can be no doubt that the constable was in the act of having immoral intercourse with the girl when discovered by him," though in common justice I must say that that was not borne out by the evidence given by Carr at the inquiry. Assistant Inspector-General Singleton replied, "This report alters the case, and the file will be laid before the Inspector-General when he returns." The Inspector-General on that report on the 21st October directed a Court of Inquiry to be held. The letters from the Rev. Mr. O'Hara were addressed to District-Inspector Shankey.
§ MR. WYNDHAMThis was a matter of discussion in the district. I do not suggest that Father O'Hara was not anxious that this man should be trans- 488 ferred—he was anxious, and wrote letters to that effect. I think notice was properly taken of the new report.
§ MR. CHARLES CRAIGWas the evidence of Carr not taken at the preliminary inquiry?
§ MR. WYNDHAMHe made a statement in general terms, and not on oath.
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! Further Questions on this subject should be placed on the Paper.
§ MR. CHARLES CRAIGI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the medical certificate in the case of Constable Anderson was submitted by him to the Inspector-General in the month of January last as part of the evidence of his innocence; and whether Constable Anderson was informed officially that the offence negatived by the certificate was not the offence charged against him, and that his dismissal was unaffected thereby; and, if so, was this decision arrived at with the approval of Sir Antony Mac-Donnell.
§ MR. WYNDHAMThe medical certificate was not communicated to me in the first instance. It accompanied Mr. Mannion's letter of the 2nd January, addressed to the Inspector-General, who, in replying to Mr. Mannion, on the 23rd January, stated that the Court of Inquiry recorded as their opinion that while the facts proved in evidence fully substantiated the charge of immoral conduct, they did not consider that any actual intercourse took place. The Inspector-General's draft reply was submitted to Sir Antony MacDonnell, who offered no objection to its issue. Had the letter been before me, I should, us at that time advised, have concurred in the Inspector-General's opinion.
§ MR. SLOANI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state who ordered the first, second, and third inquiries in the case of Constable Anderson; who 489 selected the president of the second Court; and will he explain why the president, who was first selected for the second Court, was rejected and District Inspector Hetreed appointed in his place.
§ Mr. WYNDHAMI have stated by whom the first investigation was ordered. The second investigation, which was on oath, was the Court of Inquiry and there was no second Court. By the "third inquiry" I presume my hon. friend alludes to my action when I was first cognisant of the matter in the month of February. I asked for the opinion of my legal advisers, and submitted to the Inspector-General for his consideration the view that since (1) actual intercourse was not urged on oath in respect of the facts deposed to as having occurred on the 4th June; since (2) Constable Anderson after that date and up to October 9th was for four months free to continue his courtship of this young person; since (3) seven months after the 4th June medical evidence was submitted of the character I have indicated; it was at least as probable that the facts deposed to were consistent with an innocent interpretation as that they were conclusive evidence of an attempt at seduction. I should not have pressed that view, in a matter of discipline, against the opinion of the Inspector-General. But he concurred with me in it. Then, and then only, I recommended Anderson's reinstatement with his complete assent. I believe we took the right course, and my belief is confirmed by the fact that Anderson has married the young woman. I wish to associate myself with a statement made to me by the Inspector-General, which I quote in his words. "The reckless and unscrupulous statement in certain newspapers that the confidence of the Royal Irish Constabulary is shaken in the justice they get at headquarters is absurd. I confidently assert that it is untrue, and that never in the history of the force were the men more satisfied with the way they are treated than they are now."