ADJOURNMENT. (Hansard, 11 April 1905)

§ MR. MOONEY (Dublin County, S.)
asked the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury whether he could explain the Chief Secretary's absence from the House during the discussion of Irish affairs; whether the right hon. Gentleman would also be absent to-morrow night and on Thursday when Irish questions would also be under discussion; and whether the cause of the right hon. Gentleman's 1378 absence was his presence at Punchestown; Races.

§ MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH (Anglesey)
asked whether the Prime Minister proposed to be present to-morrow night when the House would really be discussing an academic question which was not before the present Parliament.

§ MR. RUNCIMAN (Dewsbury)
asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was; aware that important statements had been made in another place with reference to the calling of a Colonial Conference; that, contrary to the practice in the House of Commons, the statements were peculiarly definite; and that, also contrary to the practice in the House of Commons, when the 1379 question was raised Ministers did not run away. One of the important features of the statement of the noble Duke who spoke for the Government was that the Prime Minister was definitely opposed to the protective taxation of food. That was a most important statement which ought to have been made by the Prime Minister himself. But a statement in so few words was quite beyond the Prime Minister's mental capacity. He took refuge in circumlocution, evasion, and verbiage, for the purpose not of enlightening but of bamboozling the House of Commons. The only reason that could be adduced why that statement should, not have been made in the House of Commons was that it would have been distasteful to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. If the right hon. Gentleman was able to confirm that statement of the noble Duke, the House would have it on authority that the views of the Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman for West Birmingham were not coincident but divergent. If any declaration so, satisfactory had been made at an earlier stage of the controversy it would not have been necessary for the Government to take refuge in flight.

§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.)
said the House of Commons was afflicted by having not only a run-away Prime Minister, but also a racing Chief Secretary. The Ministers of the Crown divided among themselves out of public funds £92,500 a year, nearly one-half of which went to the Prime Minister and his relations. As to the Chief Secretary, his duty was to attend to his business in the House of Commons, not to make a book at Punchestown. It was necessary to show the material interests of 1380 these sons of Empire. The Chief Secretary had been pitchforked into a position with £4,500 per annum, with house and coals for nothing, and housemaids and gaslight thrown in. He was also allowed expenses, in which no doubt his fare to Punchestown would be included. Why was he not in the House to discharge the duty for which he was paid? Any trustee who so neglected his obligations would be relieved of his duty on the ground of fraud—in the legal, not the moral sense. According to an evening paper, on the very day when Irish University education was to be discussed in this House the Chief Secretary was to be the guest of Lord Iveagh, so that he could attend Punchestown Races more conveniently. He submitted that that was an outrage on Parliament. After that the right hon. Gentleman was to be the guest of Lord Londonderry, and Irish business in Parliament was apparently to be left to take care of itself.

§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD, Somersetshire, Wellington)
said he had been very much occupied in looking after the business of the House, and had not, therefore, had the advantage of listening to what had been said in another place. In regard to the presence or absence of the Prime Minister the following evening, the hon. Member for Anglesey would have ocular demonstration if he was himself in his place. As to the Questions of the hon. Members for Dublin and South Donegal, he could assure them that the Chief Secretary had gone over to Ireland on purely Irish business.