'ROME RULE'

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXXII, Issue 34, 25 August 1904, Page 3

'ROME RULE'

4 One Story is Good Enough titl Another is Told '

The following letter by the ' Tablet ' editor explains itself. It appeared in last Saturday's ' livening fetar ' (Dunedm).

Sir,— "ln your latest London correspondence there appears, under the heading ' Rome Rule, 1 a story which may be summarised as follows :—: —

(1) A Protestant policeman became engaged to a Catholic girl in the almost exclusively Catholic county of Mayo, Ireland. The parish priest of the place (Father O'Hara) # ' made many efforts to prevent the marriage, hut the engaged couple would brook no 1 interference.' (2\ The* next step was the laying of th,ree grave charges against the policeman, ' on the motion of O'Haja,' coupled with the demand for his traiLster elsewhere. In consequence of Father O'Hara's representations, the constable was finally dismissed in aji improper way by Sir Antony MacDonnell, Under-Seicre-taryf lor Ireland, after having ' stood his trial and having been honorably quitted.' (3) This ( travesty of justice *' was later on, in consequence of another inquiry, set right by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Mr. Wyndham. (4) ' The facts of the case received little notice outside Ireland till attention was drawn to the matter in the House of Commons recently.' The story, as told in your columns, is a precis of a sensational one that appeared some time ago in the London ' 'Globe.' There is another and very different version of the case, which, I think, has the merit of vastly greatly probability. It rests on detailed accounts in a number of Irish and Scottish papers that I have read ; on two letters of Father O'llara, one t o an Irisfli paper, the other -to the London ' Globe ' ; and on several lengthy reports of proceedings in Parliament which are befoul me. It runs, briefly, as follows .—

1. The ' Engagement ' The somewhat romantic story of the alleged ' engagement ' of the two ' loviers true, 1 a.s told in your columns, is, through and through, hopelessly inconsistent with the .unadorned and far less agreeable narrative unfolded by the parents of the young girl and by Father O'Hara. There is no need for going into any details here, beyond stating that Father O'Hara's objection to the constable was- based on grounds quite apait from the man's religion. The Mayo pastor is described as an able and public-spirited man and exceedingly friendly with the Protestants in his parish. The Chief Secretary for Ireland, Mr. Wyndham, passed a high eulogium on him in the course of one of his replies in Parliament in connection with the case.

2. The Dismissal. Three charges were laid against the constable. They were stated as follows by Mr. Wyndham in the House of Commons on June 13 : ' (1) Having improperly entered licensed premises 'when on duty ; (2) having used obscetoe language to a boy , (3) having beeji guilty of groissly immoral conduct with a young woman.' This case was ttied by one (and only one) properly constituted court of inquiry. It consisted of two Constabulary Inspector^, one a Protestant, the other a Catholic. 1 The court of inquiry,' said Chief Secretary Mr. Wyndham in Parliament on the occasion referred to above, ' was convened on the initiative of the police ' He repudiated the suggestion that the inquiry had been instituted ' on account of representations by either Catholics or Protestants.' He declared, moreover, that the l suggestion ' that it was brought about by himself or by Undejr-Secretary Sir Antony MacDoimell ' is absolutely without foundation.' On the first and thir.d counts mentioned above, the constable was found guilty. Mr. Wyridham admitted in Parliament on June 13 that ' !.he court returned a true verdict on the evidence before it. 1 That evidence (which was direct and taken on oath) was reviewed by the Inspector-Gefneral of the Royal Irish Constabulary (an English Protestant). He concurred in the finding of the court, and at once, on December, 8, dismissed the constable from the force.

3. The Reinstatement. Soon afterwards the Ulster Unionist Members of Parliament (commonly known in Ireland as ' the Onrange Mem-

bers') discovered that the dismissed policeman was a Protestant. From' the vantage-ground of being general supporters of the G-overnemnt they put pressure on the Chief Secretary for Ireland to reinstate the dismissed man. What purported to be ' fresh evidence ' was privately tendered to Mr. VVyndham by the ex-constable's solicitor in disproof of the charge of immoral conduct referred to in Wie last paragraph. This ' evidence ' consisted of a certificate which was alleged to have beai oigr.cd by two Dublin medical men. The rest of the story was dragged out ot Mr. Wyndham by the Irish Nationalist Members in the House of Cuium,oiib ou June 13 and June 15. Briefly stated, it runs as follows : (a) The two medical men who are alleged to have signed the certificate were not seen or examined, (b) There was no evidence to show that the certificate referred to the young woman on whose account (chiefly) the constable had been dismissed, (c) No fresh court of inquiry was appointed or called to review the exconstable's case. Under the three circumstances just detailed, the alleged certificate would not be accepted as ' evidence 'by any court outside of Bedlam. (d) The ex-oonstable was reinstated on March 19 by Chief Secretary Mr. Wyndham, who overruled the decision of a court without the pretence of a further trial. (c) He followed this up by declining, in Parliament, on June 15, to grant any further inquiry into the case.

4. In Parliament.

Your correspondent is correct in stating that ' attention was drawn to the matter in the House of Commons recently.' He forgot to state that this was done by the Irish Nationalist Members, and by them alone. By arrangement (duly notified to the constable's Ulster Unionist friends by the Chief Whip, Sir Alex. Acland Hood) three solid hours of the Empire's time were set apart an July 15 for the discussion of the case. The Chief Whip held cut no hope of any further opportunity for 'deahing with the case in Parliament. His statement was confirmed by Mr. Wyndham and was admitted, for the Ulster Unionists, by one of their number, Mr. Moore, M.P. 'They knew, moreover, that to have allowed a discussion on the subject at a later stage would have been (as was pointed out) ' a violation of the invariable practice of the House.' It was the last chance of the ' yellow ' Members, and they knew it. But they absolutely declined to discuss the subject I —' they had not time,' their spokesman said, amidst ironical laughter ; and they made it abundantly Hear that they did not want either a discussion on the case in Parliament or an investigation outside. Tine reader can give a shrewd guess at the reason why. The Irish Nationalist Members (and, in Ireland, the Nationalist papers alone) have all along pressed, and aie still eagerly pressing for a full, open, searching, and impartial inquiry.

Your readers have now both versions of the ' Rome Rule ' story and can judge for themselves.— Yours, etc., EDITOR « N.Z. TABLET.'

August 19