§ MR. MOONEY (Dublin County, S.)I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has read the correspondence which passed between the Irish Executive and 91 the Estates Commissioners, and in which the Attorney-General stated that there were instructions and orders contained in the correspondence; and, if not, whether he will examine this correspondence with a view to its publication.
§ MR. WALTER LONGYes, Sir; but I have nothing to add to the replies which I have already given. I have stated that no regulations of the character mentioned in Section 23, Subsection 8, of the Act were made, but that communications of a Departmental and confidential character passed between my right hon. friend the Member for Dover and the Commissioners. Neither this correspondence nor any instructions or orders contained therein will be published.
§ MR. DILLONThe right hon. Gentleman stated to us that he had searched the records and that nothing in writing conveying instructions to the Commissioners was to be found, and he further stated that he was not in favour of concealing anything and that there was no secrecy about it. I therefore repeat my Question, whether he is prepared to publish these letters containing the instructions referred to in the Report of the Commissioners.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLWas the instruction under which Section 5 was altered made verbally or in a written document?
§ MR. WALTER LONGOf course I could not ask the last Question. In regard to the Question by the hon. Member for Mayo, what I said, I think, was that I could find no record; and, so far as I am informed, no regulations such as those contemplated in the Question were issued or even framed. There were confidential communications of the ordinary Departmental character. It is quite obvious that it would be a departure of the gravest possible kind to enter into the confidential communications between the Executive and branches of the Executive.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLDo I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say 92 that the alteration of Section 5 was made by a confidential document and is a confidential matter?
§ MR. WALTER LONGIt is a little difficult to answer these Questions, because I think there is a misunderstanding. I do not quite know what the hon. Gentleman means by the alteration of Section 5. I have repeatedly said that there were communications of an ordinary confidential and Departmental character between the Government and a branch of the Government. There is all the difference in the world between that and the issue of regulations. When my right hon. friend the Member for Dover was responsible for this branch of the Government the communications that passed were of a purely Departmental and confidential character, and it would be a gross departure from previous practice to disclose confidential transactions which took place under my predecessor.
§ MR. DILLONsaid that he could not accept the right hon. Gentleman's Answer and he would repeat his Question on another occasion.