§ Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the informer Le Caron received public money in reward for his letters to Sir Robert Anderson; if so, whether he can state under what circumstances Sir Robert Anderson was allowed to keep at his private residence these documents for which the State had paid; whether they or any other Home Office papers are still in Sir Robert Anderson's possession; and, if so, whether he will be called upon to surrender them?
§ The SECRETARY Of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill)It is well known that Le Caron was a paid agent from whom information of much importance as to the operations of secret societies was obtained by Sir Robert Anderson. None of the communications which passed between them ever came, so far as I am aware, into the actual possession of the Home Office. I do not know if any documents exist, and, in any case, they would probably not possess much intrinsic value at the present time. I will, however, make further inquiry and take such action as may seem necessary.
§ Mr. MacVEAGHArising out of that answer, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been called to the published declarations of Anderson —[HON. MEMBERS: "Sir Robert Anderson"]—that he holds in his possession the documents which came from Le Caron; that he also holds either Scotland Yard or Home Office documents written by Mazzini; and whether he considers it in the interests of public policy that an individual should hold these documents and be at liberty to sell them or make use of them for journalistic purposes?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI can only repeat the last sentence of my answer: "I will, however, make further inquiry and take such action as may seem necessary."
§ Mr. LAWSONI should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has taken, or will take, any steps to find out whether Sir Robert Anderson really wrote any of the important articles in "The Times" newspaper?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI think that might possibly be a profitable line of inquiry.
§ Mr. MacVEAGHasked what is the total amount of pension now drawn annually by Sir Robert Anderson; whether there is more than one pension; whether he was paid from the Secret Service Fund by salary, or, if not, on what other basis; and whether his pension is calculated inclusive of the years during which he, was receiving Secret Service money, but was not holding any official position?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLSir Robert Anderson draws one pension only, at the rate of £900 a year, but this pension is apportioned between Local and Imperial Funds, m accordance with Section 14 of the Police Act, 1890, £500 being paid from the Police Pension Fund and £400 from the Superannuation Vote. I cannot say anything as to the payments Sir Robert Anderson received from Secret Service, but I believe that, in accordance with an arrangement made with the Treasury in 1880, his service for pension purposes was reckoned from December, 1867, the date when he was first employed on Secret Service work by the Home Office.
§ Mr. MacVEAGHDoes that mean that he has been paid a pension based upon years during which he did not hold any official position?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThat inference may be legitimately drawn from the words I have used.
§ Mr. MacVEAGHDoes not the right hon. Gentleman think that he should reconsider an arrangement under which a pension has been paid based upon years during which, according to his own declarations, Sir Robert Anderson did not hold any official position?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThe arrangement is one made in 1880 with regard to the calculation of Sir Robert Anderson's pension, and I certainly do not think such an arrangement could be reviewed at all. As to the conditions under which pensions are held and enjoyed, that is another matter; but the original arrangement on which the pension was made is obviously a matter altogether settled.
§ Mr. MacVEAGHIs it not a fact that the Home Office within the past few weeks have come into possession of what lawyers call new facts, facts not present to their knowledge at the time this pension was arranged; and, in view of these disclosures, will he not reconsider the matter now?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLQuestion 51 makes further reference to this subject; and I will refer my hon. Friend to my answer to that question.
§ Mr. MacVEAGHasked whether Mr. Monro, ex-Commissioner of Police, admits the accuracy of Sir Robert Anderson's charge that he sanctioned the latter's conduct in acting as an agent for "The Times" newspaper; whether Mr. Monro was in receipt of a pension, and, if so, how much; and whether he admitted having failed to report to the Home Office that he had given permission to his subordinate to write the articles for "The Times."
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI have communicated with Mr. Monro, who resides in Scotland, and whose state of health prevents his attendance in London. I have not yet had his reply, and can only say at present that he certainly does not admit the accuracy of the statements made by or attributed to Sir Robert Anderson. He is not in receipt of any Home Office or Police pension.
§ Mr. MacVEAGHIn view of the fact that Sir Robert Anderson's statements, on which great reliance was placed by the Unionist party at the time of the Parnell 1234 Commission, is now challenged by his own superior official, does he not think there is a necessity for further investigation?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI say I have not yet received Mr. Monro's reply.
§ Mr. LARDNERasked the Secretary for the Home Department if he could state the date of Sir Robert Anderson's transfer from the Home Office to Scotland Yard; and by whom the transfer was recommended, and on what grounds?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLSir Robert Anderson was transferred to the office of Assistant Commissioner at Scotland Yard on 25th August, 1888. I believe I am right in saying that the promotion was recommended by Mr. Monro, who at that time held a high opinion of Sir Robert Anderson's qualifications for the appointment.
§ Mr. VINCENT KENNEDYasked whether a pension or allowance under Section 32 of the Metropolitan Police Act becomes forfeited, or may be withdrawn, if the pensioner has made use of his employment in the service in a manner which the authorities consider to be discreditable or improper; and whether this Section will be considered by the Government in the case of Sir Robert Anderson?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLBy Section 8 of the Police Act, 1890, if the holder of a police pension carries on any business, occupation, or employment in which he makes use of the fact of his former employment in a manner which the Police Authority considers discreditable or improper, the pension is liable to forfeiture. I will consider the relation in which this Section or Section 5 of the Police Act, 1906, may stand to Sir Robert Anderson's case.
§ Mr. BELLOCIf the right hon. Gentleman does not regard the action of Sir Robert Anderson as coming under this definition, what possible action would he so regard?
§ Mr. MacVEAGHWill the right hon. Gentleman have regard to the fact that the Prime Minister himself condemned Sir Robert Anderson's conduct as highly improper, and that the late Sir William Harcourt said that if it had taken place under any other Government it was not at Scotland Yard Sir Robert would have found himself?
§ Mr. MOOREBefore giving an adverse decision to Sir Robert, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the great and signal 1235 service he rendered in forestalling and defeating a dynamite conspiracy engineered in America by Mr. Patrick Ford?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI do not think I will add anything to the statement I have made in answer to the question on the Paper. The matter is one which it will fall to my lot to consider, and obviously it is not a matter on which I ought to commit myself.
§ Mr. BYLESasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that several present Members of this House were subjected to charges before the Parnell Commission, which, if proved against them, would involve not only their reputation but their lives, he will reconsider his decision to refuse an inquiry into the Home Office irregularities which at that time unjustly exposed them to this great peril?
§ The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith)The irregularities were on the part of Sir Robert Anderson, not on the part of the Home Office, which has suffered from them nearly as much as did the Irish Members. Sir Robert Anderson's communication to "The Times" and to one of the witnesses called by the Parnell Commission related, I believe, mainly to secret societies in America, and it would be exaggerating their importance to say that the safety of any present Members of the House of Commons was involved in them.
§ Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Leader of the House, the late Mr. W. H. Smith, admitted having held secret conferences with the late Mr. Walter, of "The Times" newspaper, at the time of the setting up of the Parnell Commission; whether he is aware that the Law Officers of the Crown acted as legal advisers to "The Times"; that the then Chief Secretary allowed the detective staff in Dublin to be placed at the service of "The Times"; and that the then Home Secretary, now Lord Llandaff, denies all cognisance of the activities of the Scotland Yard officials; and whether, under these circumstances, he will reconsider his decision not to hold an inquiry into the connection of the Government with "The Times" newspaper in the Parnell Commission?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThe first paragraph of the question deals with a matter of history, as to which I have no special information. As regards the second paragraph, the Attorney-General of the day 1236 acted as counsel to "The Times" in the Parnell Commission. So far as I know, the then Solicitor-General had no connection with the case. I have no knowledge as to the allegation contained in the third paragraph, I believe Lord Llandaff. the then Home Secretary, denies all cognisance of the matter referred to in paragraph four. In reply to the concluding paragraph, I have, as at present advised, nothing to add to what I said on Monday last.
§ Mr. JOHN WARDI would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is not the fact that the Lord Chief Justice, in a letter to Sir Charles Russell, declared these charges to be the result of a foul conspiracy, and whether he will insist upon an inquiry to find out who were the foul conspirators?