§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY,who had the following Notice upon the Paper:—
To inquire of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Earl Cowper has resigned the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland; and, if so, whether the Earl Spencer has been appointed to that office, and whether his Lordship holds it with his present office of President of the Council; and what steps are to be taken by Her Majesty's Government for the pacification of Ireland?said: My Lords, I put these Questions to the noble Earl yesterday; but his information was not sufficient to enable him to answer them. I now ask whether the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (Earl Cowper) has resigned; whether the noble Earl, whom I see opposite, (Earl Spencer) has taken his place; and, if so, whether any inference is to be 1920 drawn from this unusual combination of two Offices which are generally thought to be incompatible. I should be glad also to know whether the noble Earl is in a condition to inform the House whether there is any change in the policy of the Government indicated by this change of Office of the Lord Lieutenant?
§ EARL GRANVILLEMy Lords, I feel that I, perhaps, ought, at the outset, to make some sort of apology to the noble Marquess for having requested him yesterday to give me Notice of Questions of a most important character, and of the highest interest both to this country and your Lordships' House. But, at the same time, I cannot admit his inference that I was absolutely ignorant of the subjects of his Questions. My reason for asking that the Questions might be postponed was a desire to adhere to the Rule of this House, which my long experience of it shows to me is of advantage not only to the Government, but of the greatest possible advantage to the House itself—that important Questions should not be hurriedly and suddenly asked without Notice, either public or private. I cannot help thinking, too, that a little time for consideration is of advantage to the Questioner. Yesterday I was so overwhelmed by the suddenness and the number of the Questions put by the noble Marquess, that I was at fault as to my arithmetic. I thought at first that the noble Marquess put nine Questions to me. On quiet consideration, I found he had only put eight, and immediately afterwards he reduced them to four. But even that reduction was not sufficient, because I see, on looking at the Notice Paper, that he has reduced these four to two or three.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThat is not mine. That is the compression of the gentlemen at the Table.
§ EARL GRANVILLEWell, I think there is some inconvenience in the practice of putting these Questions without Notice. I see, too, that the Question which the noble Marquess told us was the most important of all is omitted from the Paper. My Lords, with regard to the first Question, it is certainly true that Earl Cowper has resigned. He did so some weeks ago; but with that consideration and public spirit he 1921 has always shown in difficult times, he left at the option of Mr. Gladstone the particular moment at which that resignation should take place. My Lords, the noble Marquess stated yesterday—and, notwithstanding the omission in the Notice, he still thinks it important to know—what are the reasons for that resignation? I have some doubts whether it is a usual course, or whether there is any right on the part of a Member of this House to ask Her Majesty's Government what are the reasons why any one of their Members has left them. I cannot help remembering circumstances about four years ago, when Her Majesty's then Ministry found the attempt to give reasons why one of their Colleagues left their body was not a success. I certainly do not think it is my duty to give the reasons that have operated in this case; but, as I think my noble Friend (Earl Cowper) will not object, I will go so far as to say—and I think it will be satisfactory for the noble Marquess to know—that the resignation of my noble Friend was not founded on any difference as to the policy of Her Majesty's Government. My Lords, I have another announcement to make, which is one that is very painful indeed to me and to Her Majesty's Government; and as it is a fact of importance, I ought to bring it before your Lordships immediately. It is that Mr. Forster, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, has also resigned. With regard to the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council (Earl Spencer), I have to say that Her Majesty has been advised to appoint him as the Successor to my noble Friend (Earl Cowper). The noble Marquess to-day, as he did yesterday, found fault with the combination that has been made; and, yesterday, he asked whether it was the fact that the Lord Lieutenancy had been placed in commendam? I beg to say that that phrase, if it can be correctly applied at all in this case, does most certainly not apply to the Lord Lieutenancy, but rather to the Presidency of the Council. I trust that the Council will not suffer during the time that this arrangement will last, and that my noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal, whose Office the House, in common with myself, often thought is a great advantage to the Cabinet, will be enabled to assume the work of an Office which, although it has greatly 1922 increased of late years, is not the hardest work of the Departments of the Government. The noble Marquess asks what inference is to be drawn from this? The inference is a very simple one. I suppose that nobody will deny the very critical state of Ireland at this moment; and we thought it desirable that the person who should succeed to the post of the Lord Lieutenant should not only have personal qualities, but should be clothed with the greatest possible authority; and I know of no way in which that authority can be better sustained than by the appointment of a Cabinet Minister who has been intimately acquainted with the views of the Cabinet during the past two years, and is, therefore, best qualified to fill this most important Office. But the noble Marquess says that is an unprecedented combination—
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThe word I used was "incompatible." There was a precedent in 1708.
§ EARL GRANVILLEWell, the other day I quoted a remark of Lord John Russell's, to the effect that if you could quote a precedent from the days of Queen Elizabeth it was a most invaluable resource. But I think, if it were necessary, I could quote a later precedent, when the Lord President of the Council occupied both positions, not provisionally, but for a considerable time. The noble Marquess asks me whether there is any fresh policy—I think he expressly used the word—intended on the part of Her Majesty's Government? My Lords, we have no fresh policy. We are acting entirely in harmony, as we believe, with the principles that have guided us up to this present time. We have certain administrative measures and certain legislative measures in our view. My Lords, it has been said that the Protection of Person and Property Bill has been a failure. That is not the opinion of Her Majesty's Government. We believe that in a very important crisis that Act has been of great use, especially in one particular—namely, in enabling the Government to counteract a most formidable agitation against rent. That Act will be in existence some months longer. But at the present time, and as now advised, it is not our intention to ask Parliament to renew the Act as it stands. At this moment the Government are 1923 carefully considering a measure designed for the purpose of strengthening the means of the administration of justice, and to protect the lives and property of private persons. As soon as the necessary Business in the House of Commons will permit, that measure will be introduced, and no other legislation except, perhaps, some of a financial character, will be allowed to come on before it is advanced or completed. My Lords, if the existence of secret societies, taken in connection with the number of those societies, shall create a necessity, we shall apply the provisions of the Protection of Person and Property Act to those societies, and we shall propose to renew the Act as far as those provisions are concerned; and also ask for such other powers as may be thought necessary for the occasion. One administrative measure which has been decided upon, but which has not been acted on, is of great importance. It was the very painful duty of Her Majesty's Government to imprison not only many persons of different classes, but also three Members of Parliament during a longtime. They did it under a sense of grave responsibility. They believed it was necessary to do so, not as penal measure, but as a measure of protection, in order to secure the safety of the public at large, and the maintenance of order in Ireland. Acting under the same grave sense of responsibility, in the same way, and with exactly the same object in view, they have now come to the conclusion that the time has arrived when it is no longer desirable to keep these three Members in prison; and an examination of other cases will immediately take place, though not as regards those who have committed crimes. I may now, my Lords, advert to another point—with regard to legislation. Your Lordships are aware that the Land Act does not deal with the question of arrears, which is an important, although a provisional, question. Then there are also what are popularly known as the "Bright Clauses" of that Act. On both those subjects the Act will require revision, and with regard to them a detailed statement will be made in Parliament at an early date.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYAgainst one, at least, of those three Gentlemen who are to be released—Mr. Parnell—there is a warrant that he is suspected of treasonable practices. I 1924 suppose that that statement Her Majesty's Government are prepared to withdraw, if they are going to release them? I also wish to ask whether the prisoner at Portland is to be released as well as the prisoners at Kilmainham?
§ EARL GRANVILLEI must trouble the noble Marquess to give me Notice of the Question.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThe noble Earl proffered the information as to the "suspects," and my Question is entirely germane to the information that he has given us.
§ EARL GRANVILLEI beg the noble Marquess's pardon; he is under a mistake. It is quite distinct. The prisoner at Portland is not imprisoned under the same Act. In the one case persons are imprisoned under Act of Parliament, and in the other the prisoner is confined under ticket-of-leave.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONThere is one Question which I wish to ask—namely, Whether or not the noble Earl is prepared to tell the House the reasons that have induced the resignation of Mr. Forster? If he is not prepared to go so far as that, whether he is prepared to reiterate the statement which he just now made in the case of my noble Friend opposite (Earl Cowper), that the resignation did not proceed from difference of opinion with his Colleagues?
§ EARL GRANVILLEI certainly am not prepared to answer the noble Earl's Question, which seems to me to be a singularly unusual one. The right hon. Gentleman is in the House of Commons, and I have no doubt that the proper method will be taken to obtain Her Majesty's permission to give the reasons which prompted him to take the course he has done—painful to himself as well as to his associates.
VISCOUNT POWERSCOURTsaid, he should not wish to let this occasion pass without bearing tribute to the great tact and temper shown by his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary in a time of unparalleled anxiety and difficulty. He trusted that Her Majesty's Government would continue to pursue the course upon which they had entered, and that nothing would turn them from the path of the redressing of grievances and the conciliation of the Irish people.
§ [Subject dropped.]