§ MR. JOHN MORLEY (Montrose Burghs)On behalf of my right hon. friend the Member for Stirling Burghs, I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in order to explain the relations between Sir Antony MacDonnell and His Majesty's Ministers, he will lay upon the Table further Papers bearing on the matter; and, in particular, any statement submitted by Sir Antony MacDonnell to his official superiors, either before or after his censure by the Cabinet.
§ MR. JOHN MORLEYI have also to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, on the appointment of a new Chief Secretary, the position of Sir Antony MacDonnell and the conditions of his office will be the same as those set out in the correspondence disclosed to the House by the late Chief Secretary on Wednesday, February 22nd, last.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI propose to lay no Papers on the Table. As regards the second Question, the tenure of the present Under-Secretary for Ireland, as that of all his predecessors, and as that of all his successors, will be that of an ordinary Civil servant.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDHas the right hon. Gentleman any objection to state whether, when the Cabinet censured Sir Antony MacDonnell, each member was aware of the correspondence which had passed between the Chief Secretary and Sir Antony MacDonnell?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI decline to answer any Question of that character; but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that to the best of my belief the really relevant facts of this case were fully before the Cabinet.
§ MR. JOHN MORLEYAre we to understand that the position of Sir Antony MacDonnell is not what it was when the right hon. Member for Dover offered, and the Prime Minister sanctioned, the appointment, and that he now serves on new terms? What are these terms?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI have always told the House, what I believe is the fact, that the terms of the appointment have always been those of an ordinary Civil servant.
§ MR. JOHN MORLEYThe late Chief Secretary expressed the opinion that they were extra and extraordinary terms connected with the appointment of Sir Antony MacDonnell. I should like to know whether these extraordinary and unusual terms are now abrogated, and, if so, whether Sir Antony MacDonnell accepts that abrogation?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI do not accept that interpretation of my right hon. friend's statement. It is perfectly true that in the letters read to the House there was a mention, for instance, of the maintenance of law and order and the passing of a Land Bill. ["University education and co-ordination."] Yes. there were two or three questions, I am not quite, sure what they were; and it is also true that it has not been usual, no doubt, for an Under-Secretary appointed in the ordinary way to discuss before his appointment questions affecting policy. Nevertheless, when an Under-Secretary is brought in from the outside, like Sir Redvers Buller or Sir Robert Hamilton, there may properly be discussion between the Under-Secretary and the Chief Secretary upon matters of policy. That, however, does not affect the fact that the Under-Secretary accepts and holds office on the ordinary tenure of an ordinary Civil servant.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLDid not the right hon. Member for Dover state that it would be impossible to expect a man of Sir Antony MacDonnell's position to take office on the ordinary terms of a Civil servant; and did he not state specifically that he accepted him as a colleague.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI have just explained to the hon. Gentleman in what respect there was a difference. It was not a difference which affected his tenure as a Civil servant. It was a difference which is to be found in the case of every distinguished Civil servant brought in from the outside to fill an office in a branch of the service of which he has not been a member before. It is not my business to interpret other people's language, but if a Secretary of State refers to an Under-Secretary as his colleague that does not imply that they are on an equality.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDWould the right hon. Gentleman clear this matter up by answering this Question: Has there been any change in the position of Sir Antony MacDonnell owing to recent events?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by change. He holds under the tenure I have described. Of course there has been a change. The Land Act, for instance, has been passed.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDI am sorry to press this matter, but I should like to ask whether, in the letter which has been quoted from Sir Antony MacDonnell, the phrase was used that mere secretarial criticism would be altogether below what his position required. Has any change been made in the conditions on which he holds office in that respect?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURIt is true that Sir Antony MacDonnell most naturally stated that mere secretarial criticism was not work he cared to undertake, having, as he had, the choice of joining the Indian Council. Nor is it the work commonly given to distinguished Under-Secretaries. They are not, as a rule, except through some disagreement with their chief, confined, and they ought not to be confined, merely to secretarial work.
§ MR. SLOANDoes the Under-Secretary still hold the same right to represent the Irish Executive on special missions to the North on the question of higher education?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURHe has no right except the rights he derives from his chief.
§ MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs)Is there any foundation for the report that the Government have decided that the Under-Secretary shall be dismissed?
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order!