HC Deb 09 March 1905 vol 142 cc941-5
MR. SLOAN

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the resignation of the Chief Secretary, it is still the intention of the Government to retain the services of Sir Antony MacDonnell as Under - Secretary at Dublin Castle.

THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.)

My hon. friend will readily understand that I could not offer any opinion upon the subordinate members of the Chief Secretary's Office until I have the advantage of the advice of the Chief Secretary. The Chief Secretary is not yet appointed, and, therefore, I fear I cannot answer the Question.

MR. SLOAN

May I ask whether in the meantime the House is to understand that conditions under which Sir Antony MacDonnell accepted the Under-Secretaryship have not been with-drawn, and still hold good?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Sir Antony MacDonnell, as I have explained, in my opinion, holds his office on the ordinary tenure of a Civil servant.

MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN (Kilkenny)

Has the right hon. Gentleman appealed to any of the Ulster Unionists to see if they will take the Chief Secretaryship?

AN HON. MEMBER

Sloan will take it.

MR. DELANY

Is there any reason why Sir Antony MacDonnell should be victimised to satisfy a handful of Orange bigots?

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

Can the First Lord of the Treasury say whether Sir Antony MacDonnell has been informed that the particular conditions under which he accepted his appointment have been withdrawn?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I have answered that by statements in debate in this House, and those statements are public.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

Will the right hon. Gentleman give us some idea when he will be in a position to make an announcement with reference to the appointment of Chief Secretary; or does he intend to leave it vacant until the dissolution?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

No, Sir. I hope to make an appointment very soon. The length of time the hon. Gentleman suggests for leaving the office open would be formidable indeed.

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.)

Will the right hon. Gentleman say who is now the Minister responsible for the maintenance of the Executive Government in Ireland?

*MR. SPEAKER

Order. That does not arise out of the Question on the Paper.

MR. JOHN ELLIS (Nottinghamshire, Rushclifie)

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, on the receipt by him in September, 1902, from the late Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, of the purport of the letter of Sir Antony MacDonnell, dated September 22nd, 1902, he communicated in any way to his colleagues the conditions set forth in such letter, and their acceptance by the late Chief Secretary and himself as the basis of Sir Antony MacDonnell's appointment as Undersecretary.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I have no statement to make to the House, as I think I have before intimated, with regard to communications between members of the Government.

MR. JOHN ELLIS

May I ask why, as the Chief Secretary, in the hearing of the right hon. Gentleman, made a statement as to the communications between himself and the First Lord of the Treasury, the House should not have the other letters?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I think the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. My right hon. friend made no such statement. What he did was to read two letters, one which passed from Sir Antony MacDonnell to him, the other from him to Sir Antony MacDonnell, in which there was a reference to me.

MR. JOHN ELLIS

He went further. [Cries of "Order."] I am perfectly in order. I wish to remind the Prime Minister that the Chief Secretary went further. He not only read the letters, but told the House that he sent to the First Lord of the Treasury the purport of those letters, and received his assent.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I do not think he did say that. [Cries of "Yes."] I may be wrong; I do not remember everything said in the House; but my recollection is that there was a phrase in one of the letters which the hon. Gentleman has in his mind, but that no comment was made by the Chief Secretary.

MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)

Did it not appear from one of the letters read to the House that a ciphered message passed to the Prime Minister?

MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL (Oldham)

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he communicated the fact that he had these ciphered letters submitted to him to his other colleagues?

*MR. SPEAKER

That is not on the Paper.

MR. BLAKE (Longford, S.)

With all respect, Sir, I would submit that it is on the Paper, for the Prime Minister is asked whether he communicated in any way to his colleagues the conditions set forth in Sir Antony MacDonnell's letter.

*MR. SPEAKER

I thought some other communication was referred to, because the Question on the Paper has been answered.

MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL

No, Sir. The First Lord of the Treasury is under a misapprehension if he thinks he answered that Question, because he certainly did not answer either negatively or affirmatively whether he communicated to his colleagues the ciphered correspondence.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right. I did not answer the Question either affirmatively or negatively. I did not answer it at all.

MR. LABOUCHERE

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in expressing his concurrence with the appointment of Sir Antony MacDonnell as Irish Under-Secretary, in reply to a ciphered telegram from the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant conveying to him the purport of the letter of Sir Antony, dated September 22nd, 1902, reciting the conditions under which he accepted that appointment, this concurrence was signified by him as the head of His Majesty's Government, and is to be understood as carrying with it the collective approval of the Cabinet; and, if not, when that approval was given.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman must draw his own conclusions from what has already been made public.