§ MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the persistent attacks made on a permanent official of the Irish Government in connection with the case of Constable Anderson, he will grant a public inquiry into all the circumstances connected with the dismissal and reinstatement of Constable Anderson.
§ MR. WALTER LONGNo, Sir. I see no reason to grant the proposed inquiry.
§ MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)May I ask whether, in view of the exceedingly serious nature of the accusations which are being made by hon. Members against certain members of the Irish Government, and in view of the conflict 487 that has arisen between the Member for Dover and certain Members of the House on matters of fact, the right hon. Gentleman will not say that it is in the public interest to grant a full inquiry into the circumstances of the case.
§ MR. WILLIAM MOORE (Antrim, N.)May I ask whether the Under-Secretary for Ireland has authorised the hon. Members for Waterford and East Mayo to take up this question?
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDI will at once answer that insinuation. I have had no communication, direct or indirect, with the Under-Secretary on this question.
§ MR. WILLIAM MOOREThen the hon. Member is unauthorised?
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILLWere you authorised by Lord Londonderry?
§ MR. WALTER LONGI am certain that my hon. friend is mistaken as to the Under-Secretary having any knowledge or any share in the putting of this Question. As the hon. Gentleman who put the additional Question is aware, a controversy has arisen over two totally different subjects—first, whether or not the case of Constable Anderson was properly dealt with; and, secondly, the share which the Under-Secretary had in the conduct of the case. On the first head I have to say that there seems to be no necessity for an inquiry, and on the second point my right hon. friend the late Chief Secretary has stated that the charges against the Under-Secretary are unfounded and ought not to have been brought forward. I have examined the Papers dealing with the subject, and my view agrees with that of my right hon. friend the Member for Dover that there is no necessity for an inquiry, nor could a good result come out of further investigation, which, as I am advised, is unnecessary.
§ MR. DILLONIn view of the fact that recently in the House a statement was made by the late Chief Secretary, which I cannot accept as having been accurately repeated by the right hon. Gentleman, and was challenged——
§ MR. T. L. CORBETTI rise to a point of order——
§ MR. DILLONHon. Members opposite are evidently very much afraid of the facts. I notice with interest their extreme anxiety. I ask whether, in view of what occurred recently in the House, when the hon. Member for North Antrim flatly contradicted the right hon. Member for Dover, and asserted publicly in the House that the charges made against the Under-Secretary for Ireland were absolutely true——
§ MR. T. L. CORBETTagain rose to order amid loud cries of "Sit down."
§ SIR GEORGE BARTLEY (Islington, N.)He is rising to a point of order.
§ MR. REDDY (King's County, Birr)Why do not you name him?
§ MR. DILLONWhether in view of the fact that the Chief Secretary will not either grant a public inquiry into all the facts of this case or inform the House whether he has studied the facts himself, he will make a public statement in reply to the charges brought publicly in the House by the Member for North Antrim?
§ MR. WALTER LONGI have already stated that I do not consider any inquiry necessary, and that no good object could be served by holding it. I do not understand what form it is suggested that the inquiry should take, nor what its scope should be in order to carry out the object of the hon. Member. I stated just now that I had myself examined the case, and I confirm absolutely the view expressed by my right hon. friend the Member for Dover and the action taken in this matter—action for which he was alone responsible—that the charges made against the Under-Secretary of having unduly influenced the policy of the Government were unfounded. I do not 489 see that any good object would be served by an inquiry, nor do I realise what form any such inquiry could take.
§ MR. DILLONMy Question on the Paper indicated fully the form and the scope of the inquiry—namely, "A public inquiry into all the circumstances connected with the dismissal and reinstatement of Constable Anderson." Inasmuch as so much public scandal has arisen, I desire that all the facts should be made public. We are not afraid of facts. I ask tine right hon. Gentleman, however, whether I am to understand his reply as implying that there is not an atom of foundation for any of the charges made against Sir Antony MacDonnell in connection with this case.
§ MR. WALTER LONGI do not think that I can add anything to what I have already said on the subject. I have stated frankly what I believe to be the true story of this case, and I cannot in answer to Questions deal more fully with the subject nor add anything to what I have said.
§ MR. DILLONWhat we desire is that all the facts should be made public. We are not afraid of facts.
§ MR. T. L. CORBETTYou are making a speech.
§ MR. MACVEAGHThat is more than you can make.
§ MR. DILLONAm I to understand, from what the Chief Secretary has said, that there is not an atom of foundation for any of the charges made against Sir Antony MacDonnell?
§ MR. WALTER LONGI have said frankly what I believe to be the true history of the case, and I cannot deal further with it in answer to a Question.
§ MR. DILLONI beg to give notice, then, that I shall raise this question again on the Chief Secretary's salary.
§ MR. MACVEAGHAnd the Ulstermen will run away.