§ 16. Mr. RONALD McNEILLasked the Chief Secretary whether he has any information as to the nationality and antecedents of one M'Sweeney, commonly known as Count M'Sweeney, who resides in Fitzwilliam Square, in Dublin; if he can say whether he is the same M'Sweeney who, being the son of an Irish butcher, but having married a Brazilian heiress named Cavaleranti de Albuquerque, went to Rome in 1894, and in the following year was appointed to a post in the secret service of the Vatican, his name appearing as Petruzio MacSweeney, of Washington, in the Papal Calendar for 1896, about which time he received the title of Marchese from the Pope, and who, after obtaining a divorce from his first wife, was married in 1910 in the chapel of the castle of Schlitz, in the Grand Duchy of Hesse, to Her Highness the Countess Anna von 1216 Schlitz, a relative of the German Emperor, and was afterwards employed in the German secret service; whether M'Sweeney purchased an estate near the South Coast of Ireland in 1914 from the Estates Commissioners; whether, after the outbreak of war, the Government was warned several times by the late Mr. Commissioner Bailey that M'Sweeney's movements and conduct were suspicious; whether M'Sweeney's house in Dublin is a rendezvous for Sinn Feiners; and whether, having regard to M'Sweeney's German relations and to the fact that he has been employed in the secret service both of the Pope and the Kaiser, the Government is satisfied that his present activities are directed to the national advantage?
§ Sir STUART COATSBefore the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, is he aware that the Vatican has no secret service, and also that Patrizio M'Sweeney, who was at one time a Private Chamberlain to Pope Pius X, had all the papal honours of which he had been the recipient annulled by Pope Pius X several years before the death of that Pontiff, and that his name has not for many years appeared in the Annuario Pontificio which is the official year book of the Vatican?
§ Mr. SAMUELSThe Marquess M'Sweeney is, as I am informed, the son of a British subject, and was born in France. He held the position of Vice-Chamberlain at the Vatican, but I have no information that he was in the German secret service. His present wife is a daughter of the late Count von Schlitz, and is related to the Kaiser.
He purchased some small property in the neighbourhood of Macroom, county Cork, shortly before the War, and was living at Killarney. He was associated with the National Volunteers. He was afterwards regarded with suspicion, chiefly, as I am informed, owing to his wife's German origin. Having obtained permission for his wife to reside in Dublin, the Marquess M'Sweeney took a house in Dublin some time ago. His house has been kept under observation from time to time, but no suspicious persons have been observed to visit there or to associate with the Marquess or Marchioness M'Sweeney.
§ Mr. McNEILLWill the right hon. Gentleman answer that part of the question referring to the warnings given by the late Commissioner Bailey?
§ Mr. SAMUELSI have no information about Mr. Commissioner Bailey.
§ Mr. McNEILLCan the right hon. Gentleman not inquire whether warnings were not given before he and his friends came into office by Mr. Commissioner Bailey?
§ Mr. SAMUELSI will make inquiries, and I will communicate with my hon. Friend on the subject.
§ Mr. McKEANIs it right for a Member of this House to put upon the Paper a series of charges in the shape of questions reflecting most seriously on the character of an honourable man without there being any opportunity afforded on the same occasion for a reply being made to those charges. I know the Marchese M'Sweeney——
§ Mr. SPEAKERI have frequently pointed out, especially to the hon. Member's colleagues in the past, that it was very undesirable indeed to make charges against persons who had no representatives here, and who had no means of answering. If an hon. Member places a question of this character on the Paper, it must be assumed that he has himself made some attempt at investigation, and that primâ facie he believes the statements he makes.
§ Mr. McKEANHe may be wrong, but if he is wrong what opportunity is there for the party defamed to justify himself——
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe proper course for any person who feels himself aggrieved by a question on the Paper is to communicate with the Minister who has to reply, and the Minister will, no doubt, use his judgment and discretion as to the information which he gives to the House, and will probably state that the information came from the person who was aggrieved.
§ Mr. McNEILLAs the question which I put on the Paper has now been answered by a Member of the Government, as far as I have been able to follow it, substantially in the affirmative as regards the statement of facts in the question, I wish to ask whether, at a time like the present, a Member of Parliament is not only allowed, but it is his duty when information reaches him, provided he takes care to substantiate it to the best of his ability in the interests of the country, to ask for 1218 information from the Government as to whether suspicious characters are or are not sufficiently safeguarded?
§ Mr. McKEANArising out of the answer in which you, Mr. Speaker, gave to me, I wish to put this further question. You suggested in your reply that the proper course for a person about whose character certain statements are made is to communicate with the Minister who will answer the question. Is it the position that a Minister will accept from a person about whom such charges were made such information as authentic and give it here in this House? I do not think he would.
§ Mr. SPEAKERIf he did his duty properly he would say he had received information to a contrary effect or to this effect or the other.
§ Mr. McKEANI cannot——
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe time for questions is limited——
§ Mr. McKEANThis is a very serious question.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI cannot allow any further discussion at the present time upon this matter.