HC Deb 18 June 1917 vol 94 cc1453-4W
Sir J. YOXALL

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware that, after a searching inquiry held by Mr. T. P. O'Connor, chief inspector, the Commissioners of National Education decided that the Reverend John Gailey's action in dismissing Mr. John Hadden from the principalship of Ballysillan national school was unwarranted; that in the legal action of Hadden v. Gailey, tried at the recent Assizes at Belfast, the jury found that Mr. Gailey's letter to the Commissioners was defamatory; that a successor to Mr. Hadden was appointed, but that the Commissioners refused to appoint or recognise him, and that that decision has lately been rescinded; if he is aware that Mr. Hadden is now unable to secure employment; and, as he has been unjustly dismissed, will the Commissioners of National Education secure an appointment for him?

Mr. DUKE

The facts are as stated. The Commissioners have no information as to whether Mr. Hadden is unable to secure employment, but they cannot undertake to secure employment for him.

Sir J. YOXALL

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware that in the legal action of M'Mordie v. Edgar, tried in Dublin in June, 1916, it was decided that a libel on a teacher written by the manager to the Commissioners of National Education was not privileged, and that in the case of Hadden v. Gailey, tried at the late Belfast assizes, Lord Chief Justice Campbell decided that such a libel is privileged; and, as both managers and teachers of Irish national schools are deeply interested in knowing which decision is legal, will he take the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown as to whether the manager of a national school has the right to libel a teacher to the Board with impunity?

Mr. DUKE

In the action M'Mordiev. Edgar, the learned judge rules that the occasion of the libel was privileged, but the jury found there was malice and judgment was given for the plaintiff. In Hadden v. Gailey, the Lord Chief Justice likewise held that the occasion was privileged, but the jury found there was no-express malice and judgment was given for the defendant.