The Pall Mall, of Monday, had a legitimate triumph over
us,, for once. It showed that we had not anticipated " precisely,"— as we said last week that we had,—the effect which the new rule adopted by the Irish National Education Board would have on the O'Keeffe ease. On the contrary, we anticipated on the 12th July that Mr. O'Keeffe would, under the new rule, "be restored for a day or two," would have notice that the Board think him unfit, would protest against that view, and would then be removed, not because he is a suspended priest, but because his suspension has operated to withdraw' the confidence of his parishioners. We must admit that we had misremembered our own expectation. However, we hold Acme the less that the course the Commissioners are actually taking is. far more just and generous to Mr. O'Keeffe than one which would reinstate him, with the strong probability.of an immi- nent removal, if the inquiry instituted should show, as it is most likely to show, that Mr. O'Keeffe would be a very injudicious choice for the post. It seems, indeed, that no less than ten Commissioners on the Irish Board voted against thezmendment which would have restored Mr. Q'Keeffe- before inquiring into his fitness, and only four in favour of it (showing a very great loss of strength on the part of the minority), —the erroneous numbers reported last week being due to an altogether illegitimate and inaccurate publication of them by some- member of the defeated minority. It is perfectly obvious that the purpose of the new rule—bye-laws of this kind are never in e- ted literally like a statute, but by their real meaning—was simply this,—that the official suspension of a priest or minister is to be per se no reason for his removal, though the loss of popular confidence in him which such a suspension would usually imply, would be. In that sense the Commissioners are clearly giving Mr. O'Keeffe the full benefit of the new rule.
Previous page
