§ Mr. JOHN REDMONDasked the Prime Minister whether his attention had been called to the statement made by Sir Robert Anderson that, while he was a servant of the Government as adviser to the Home Office in 1887, he wrote the articles, entitled "Parnellism and Crime," which appeared in "The Times" newspaper; whether, shortly after the articles appeared, Sir Robert Anderson was promoted to be head of the Criminal Investigation Department of Scotland Yard, and during the years 1888 and 1889 placed the resources of that Department at the disposal of "The Times" to support the articles he had himself written; is there any record to show whether the Government of the day were a party to this action; whether such conduct has any precedent; whether it is possible under existing conditions to-day; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into this matter?
Mr. MacVEAGH alsoasked the Prime Minister whether his attention had been called to the statement of Sir Robert Anderson that he was the author of "The Times" newspaper articles under the title "Parnellism and Crime"; what official position he occupied at the time; whether he subsequently was promoted to the post of Political Adviser to the Home Office and Chief of the Criminal Investigation Department at Scotland Yard; whether he is aware that there is 892 not any precedent for such conduct on the part of an official of a Government Department; and whether, under the circumstances, he will consent to lay upon the Table of the House all Home Office documents bearing on the Parnell Commission or "The Times" articles?
§ The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith)In 1887, when the articles on "Parnellism and Crime" appeared in "The Times," Sir Robert Anderson was secretary to the Prison Commissioners, and was also employed by Mr. Monro on Secret Service work. He was promoted to be Head of the Criminal Investigation Department in August, 1888, but he never held any post which could be described as "Political Adviser to the Home Office." In 1889 he placed certain documents which he had obtained when employed in the Secret Service, at the disposal of Le Caron, for use in the evidence which he gave before the Statutory Commission; but in doing so he acted without the previous consent or knowledge of the Home Secretary, and I can say with some confidence that the Home Secretary had no knowledge of his being or claiming to be author or part author of "The Times" articles. If Sir Robert Anderson wrote "The Times" articles, or any part of them, his action was contrary to the rules and traditions of the Civil Service, and, so far as I know, without precedent. I cannot conceive that such a thing could occur under existing conditions. After a lapse of more than twenty years, I do not think the suggested inquiry would serve any useful purpose, and I am informed that the papers in the Home Office bearing upon the Parnell Commission are few and unimportant, and that there are none which could properly be laid on the Table of the House.
§ Mr. JOHN REDMONDMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the extreme gravity of this question, he really thinks that the lapse of time is a sufficient reason for refusing an inquiry? It is impossible for me to enlarge now upon the gravity of the question, but that must be apparent to the House on the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. Is it not apparent that an officer of the Government, in the employment of the Home Office, was secretly engaged in supplying confidential documents belonging to the Government to "The Times" in a private prosecution against Mr. Parnell and his colleagues; and I would ask him, in view of the natural suspicion which must arise as to the way in which these 893 attacks are made, whether he does not think it would be wise to institute an inquiry into the whole circumstances?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI am sure I shall not be suspected of any desire to shield Sir Robert Anderson or any of the parties concerned in this matter. The lot which fell to me in connection with this case is sufficiently well known, and I cannot use language sufficiently strong to express my condemnation of the admitted breach of official duty of which Sir Robert Anderson was guilty. The only question which the hon. and learned Gentleman puts to me is whether now, at this distance of time, any useful purpose would be served by an inquiry. I confess at the moment I do not see how it could. I do not think it is necessary to do so, but every step that can foe taken will be taken to prevent a recurrence of such a gross breach of official confidence. Unless the hon. and learned Gentleman can suggest that some useful purpose will be served by an inquiry, I do not myself at this moment propose to take the responsibility of embarking upon it.
§ Mr. JOHN REDMONDMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not a fact that Sir Robert Anderson is at present in receipt of a pension of £400 a year, paid under the Police Vote? I wish to ask him also whether Sir Robert Anderson is in receipt of any pension in connection with the Home Office, and I wish to ask him, finally, whether he will give facilities to us in the next Vote on Account, or on the first opportunity that arises, of discussing the whole matter, and of pressing the desirability of ending his pension or of having a full inquiry?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI should like notice about any pension. I am not sufficiently informed of the facts. On the Vote on Account I imagine there would be sufficient opportunity of discussing the whole matter.
§ Mr. JOHN REDMONDThere would not be such an opportunity except with the assistance of the Government, and unless arrangements were made. Discussions on Votes on Account do not necessarily include all the points desired to be discussed, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would do his best to afford every facility on that occasion?
§ The PRIME MINISTERIf it is permissible, certainly. I think this is a very grave matter.