Lords Sitting of 17 February 1905

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Abertillery Urban District Water Bill [H.L.]; Administrative County of London and District Electric Power Company Bill [H.L.]; Alexandra Park and Palace Bill [H.L.]; Bangor (County Down) Water and Improvement Bill [H.L.]; Blackpool Improvement Bill [H.L.]; Bristol Blind Asylum Bill [H.L.]; Clacton Improvement Bill [H.L.]; Clacton-on-Sea Commissioners Bill [H.L.]; East London and Lower Thames Electric Power Bill [H.L.]; Formby Township Bill [H.L.]; Hastings Harbour Bill [H.L.]; Humber Conservancy Bill [H.L.]; Hythe Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Littlehampton Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]; Llandrindod Wells Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]; London Squares and Enclosures (Preservation) Bill [H.L.]; Mansfield Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Matlock Bath Improvement Bill [H.L.]; Nine Mile Point Railway Bill [H.L.]; Nottingham Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Orphan Working School and Alexandra Orphanage Bill [H.L.]; Preston Corporation (Ribble Navigation) Bill [H.L.]; Sandgate Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]; Sheffield University Bill [H.L.]; Southport, Birkdale, and West Lancashire Water Board Bill [H.L.]; Stepney Borough Council (Superannuation) Bill [H.L.]; Tees Valley Water Board Bill [H.L.]; Torpoint Urban District Water Bill [H.L.]; Tralee Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]; University College, London (Transfer) Bill [H.L.]; Weaver Navigation Bill [H.L.]; Whitby Urban District Council [H.L.]; Read 1a.
Barry Railway Bill [H.L.]; Blackpool, St. Anne's, and Lytham Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Bridgewater Canals Bills [H.L.]; Cardiff Railway Bill [H.L.]; Charing Cross and Strand Electricity Supply Corporation Bill [H.L.]; City of London Electric Lighting Company Bill [H.L.]; Commercial Union Assurance Bill [H.L.]; Cordoba and Rosario Railway Bill [H.L.]; East Cowes Gas Bill [H.L.]; Entre Rios Railways Bill [H.L]; Gosport and Fareham Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Great Central Railway Bill [H.L.]; Great Central Railway (Pension Fund) Bill [H.L.]; Hastings
430
Harbour District Railway (Abandonment) Bill [H.L.]; Hastings Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Hessle Gas Bill [H.L.]; Leeds and Liverpool Canal Bill [H.L.]; Metropolitan and Great Central Railway Companies Bill [H.L.]; Metropolitan District Railway Bill [H.L.]; Metropolitan Electric Supply Company (Acton District) Bill [H.L.]; Metropolitan Electric Supply Company (Various Powers) Bill [H.L.]; Metropolitan Railway Bill [H.L.]; Mexborough and Swinton Tramways (Extension of Time) Bill [H.L.]; Mortgage Insurance Corporation Bill [H.L.]; North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Bill [H.L.]; Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Oldham and Saddleworth District Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Rhymney Railway Bill [H.L.]; South-Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railways Bill [H.L.]; Southend and Colchester Light Railways Bill [H.L.]; South Lancashire Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Truro Water Bill [H.L.]; Tyneside Tramways and Tramroads Bill [H.L.]; West Cumberland Electric Tramways (Extension of Time) Bill [H.L.]; Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Water and Gas Bill [H.L.]; Workington Harbour and Dock Bill [H.L.]. Read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

NEW BILL.
  McCONNELL'S DIVORCE BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to dissolve the marriage of Sir Robert John McConnell, Baronet, of Windsor Avenue, in the county of the city of Belfast, with Elsie George McConnell, his now wife, and to enable him to marry again; and for other purposes. Presented (on petition), and a copy of the proceedings in, and of the decree of divorce of the King's Bench Matrimonial Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland. Delivered (on oath); Bill read la; and to be read 2a on Tuesday, 28th March. The usual orders made.
RETURNS REPORTS, ETC.

  ROLL OF THE LORDS.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had prepared and laid it on the Table.

  431
  The same was ordered to be printed. (No. 9.)

  RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC ACTS, 1854 to 1894.
  Sixteenth Annual Report of the Railway and Canal Commission; with Appendix.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 3324. Denmark (Supplementary Report for 1903).
  No. 3325. Belgium (Finances for 1904–1905).
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Draft Order in Council continuing certain provisions contained in the Order in Council of 6th March, 1902.
  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF LANCASTER).
  Order made by the County Council of the County of Lancaster, re-dividing the Chorley Parliamentary Division into two convenient polling districts.
  BUILDING SOCIETIES.
  Tenth Annual Report by the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies of the proceedings of the Registrars under the Building Societies Acts; with an abstract of the annual accounts and statements of the societies, for the year 1904.
  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES, WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION SCHEMES, INDUS- TRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES, AND TRADE UNIONS.
  Reports of the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies, for the year ended 31st December, 1904.
  CERTIFIED INEBRIATE REFORMA- TORIES (REGULATIONS FOR MAN- AGEMENT).
  Regulations made with the approval of the Secretary of State for the Home Department for the management and discipline of the Lancashire Certified Inebriate Reformatory.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER.
  Account of the receipts and disbursements of the Duchy of Lancaster in the year ended 21st December, 1904; also, a
  432
  separate account of the capital of the said Duchy to the same date.

  LOCOMOTIVES ON HIGHWAYS ACT, 1896, AND MOTOR CAR ACT, 1903.
  Orders by the Secretary for Scotland prohibiting motor car traffic—
  On special roads in the county of Perth. (20th August, 1904.)
  On a road in the county of Perth. (3rd February, 1905.)
  On certain roads in the county of Midlothian. (3rd February, 1905.)
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SIR ANTONY MACDONNELL AND IRISH DEVOLUTION.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN*THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN rose to call attention to certain references to Ireland contained in a speech of the Solicitor-General as reported in The Times of the 8th inst. He said: My Lords, I have to ask your Lordships' indulgence while I make, as briefly as I can, a statement which will be of the nature of a personal explanation; but I am afraid I shall have to tax your Lordships' patience by entering into many details which your Lordships will think small and trivial, and which are, in fact, small and trivial in themselves, but upon which a significance has been placed by very determined efforts on the part of some persons to attach a most sinister meaning to many entirely innocent actions and events.
  On the 8th inst. The Times published a sort of postscript to a report of a speech delivered by the Solicitor-General on the 4th inst., and accompanied it by a note saying that the references of the Solicitor-General to Ireland had been unfortunately omitted in their first report. That, in itself, is a rather unusual thing for a newspaper to do, and indicated, I suppose, that in the opinion of the Solicitor-General or in the opinion of The Times, or in both their opinions, the references made by the Solicitor-General to Ireland in that speech were of very peculiar importance. In those references Sir E. Carson alluded to the scheme of devolution which I and some

  433
  colleagues of mine have lately put forward in Ireland as
  "A fatuous, ridiculous, unworkable, and impracticable scheme, lately set going in Ireland by certain gentlemen whose names had been attached to it."
  Now, my Lords, it was impossible for the stupidest man in Sir E. Carson's audience to have mistaken the significance of that expression; it could only mean, and could only have been intended to mean, that certain gentlemen had acted as mere dummies in the matter and had attached their names to a policy and principles for which they were in reality not in the least responsible. I must acknowledge the gracious, though veiled, compliment paid by the Solicitor-General to myself and my colleagues, a few country gentlemen in Ireland, when he suggested that it was impossible that our brains could have orginated so fatuous and unworkable a scheme; but I cannot accept the compliment, because, as a matter of fact, we alone are responsible for that scheme. Sir E. Carson went on to say that
  "The grievance of Irish Unionists was, rightly or wrongly, that the scheme had originated with a permanent official retained under a Unionist Government at Dublin Castle."
  Sir E. Carson made no charge, because to make a charge would be very unbecoming on his part; he contented himself with repeating that
  "The charge of the Irish Unionists, that a permanent civil servant retained under a Unionist Government at Dublin Castle had himself evolved a policy which had been disavowed by the Prime Minister and the Chief Secretary for Ireland."
  I need not say that the civil servant referred to was Sir Antony MacDonnell. For months past there have been circulated in Ireland the most preposterous and ridiculous yarns and stories on this subject; clandestine meetings between myself and Sir Antony MacDonnell in remote inns in the wilds of Kerry have been mentioned, and all kinds of preposterous stories have been circulated—stories so ridiculous that I should have thought their very absurdity would have rendered them innocuous. These stories were all too silly to be taken notice of. But Sir E. Carson's speech, to my mind, puts an entirely different complexion on the case. The charge against us was there
  434
  accurately formulated. It was that Sir Antony MacDonnell evolved a policy disavowed by his chief, and that he persuaded us, the Irish Reform Association, to publish it as if it had emanated from us; being afraid or ashamed to acknowledge himself the author he got us to assume the authorship. If such a charge were true Sir Antony MacDonnell must have pressed forward a policy disavowed by his superior officer; he must have used us to deceive his chief and we must have lent ourselves to that deception. After reading the charges so formulated I considered myself justified in making an explanation in your Lordships' House, and I need scarcely say that I have asked and received Sir Antony MacDonnell's permission to do so.
  I am not at all concerned at this moment to defend our policy, nor am I concerned with Sir E. Carson's opinion regarding it. I will only say this, that the policy of devolution was put forward by us in all seriousness and honesty, believing, as we do, that it is essential for the better government of Ireland, and for the greater contentment of the country. It is also essential to put the legislative union between the two countries on a surer and firmer foundation than any upon which it can stand so long as legitimate and remediable grievances and causes of discontent in Ireland remain unremedied. As I say, I am not now concerned to defend our policy; what I am concerned to show is that we alone are responsible for that policy, and that we were parties to no deception whatever for the best of all possible reasons, that there was no sort of deception to be parties to.
  Now, my Lords, what is the genesis of devolution? That is a question that has been bellowed at me through the megaphones of some of my fellow-countrymen persistently for the last few months. I cannot pretend to trace the origin of the policy down to its absolute roots; I daresay the idea may have been in men's minds for many years. But for all practical purposes our policy originated in a circular which was sent out on March 3rd, 1903, and signed by, I think, five members of the Land Conference Committee. 1 have that circular in my hand.

  435
  I need not trouble your Lordships with much of it, but I will read the most pertinent passage—
  "It is, however, now becoming evident that only in a reasonable system of gradual devolution of legislative powers is to be found the solution of the problem that demands such urgent consideration. In no other way can Parliament be relieved from the ever-increasing strain of public business, or the legitimate aspirations of Ireland for some definite form of self-government be met."
  I think, my Lords, that indicates pretty clearly where the origin of devolution lies. That circular concluded by suggesting that a meeting should be held in Dublin, and asking for an expression of opinion I as to the advisability of holding it.
  I received a copy of that circular and gave it as my opinion that the time was not opportune for taking any definite action in the matter. I thought the time was not opportune for reasons which I am sure will appeal to your Lordships as practical and common-sense men. It is perfectly true that very different reasons were attributed to me by the Attorney-General for Ireland. He attributed to us the most sordid and unworthy motives, both in putting forward this policy of devolution, and in not bringing it practically forward at the date of the circular of 1903. Writing to The Times on October 27th, the Attorney-General asked—
  "Whether, in short, the devolution scheme is not the price secretly arranged to be paid for Nationalist acquiescence in a settlement of the land question on generous terms."
  My Lords, that is a very serious charge to make against us. It is that we privately bargained with the Nationalists to get generous terms from the Land Conference, in consideration for which we were to bring in a scheme of devolution, but to postpone bringing in that scheme until we were practically certain that we were going to get good terms, and had sold our estates in a manner satisfactory to us. I am not going to trouble your Lordships with a denial of that. We disposed of that question at the time, and I need not allude to it further now. I did not advocate proceeding with this matter in March, 1903, because the Land Conference Committee had been appointed for a definite purpose which had not then been fulfilled; because all men's minds were then taken up
  436
  with land purchase; because, if I may use a vulgar expression, we—the Land Conference Committees—had, I thought, "bitten off quite as much as we could chew." I therefore came to, I think, the very natural conclusion that it was not the time for us to embark on any new enterprise. So I wrote to my friends, and the matter was temporarily allowed to drop.
  It was revived last August. I thought at that time that the Land Conference, had done all the work it could possibly find to do, that it had fulfilled its purpose and had better be dissolved. I thought, too, for many reasons—local reasons with which I need not trouble your Lordships—that the time was then opportune for starting our policy of devolution sketched out in the circular from which I have quoted. I wrote on June 7th to the secre- of the Land Conference Committee, and suggested calling the committee together on August 25th. Colonel Poi happened to write to me on the very same day suggesting the same thing, and in reply to his letter I said I was quite agreed that the time was opportune for action, and I suggested a meeting on August 25th. I also sketched out what I thought our objectives should be, and among them was larger control for Ireland over her local affairs. We had, I think, one or two informal meetings and a committee meeting on August 25th, when we passed two resolutions—one dissolving the committee, and another forming the Irish Reform Association. At a meeting of the association on August 26th or 27th the report that we brought up was considered, amended, and adopted, and it was published on August 31st. That is the whole history of the genesis of the policy of devolution.
  I am sorry to have to trouble your Lordships with all these small details, but after the charge which was formulated against us by the Solicitor-General it became absolutely necessary, for the sake of my colleagues and myself, to show that the whole principles of the policy of devolution originated with the Land Conference Committee, and not with Sir Antony MacDonnell, and that we decided to move that committee to take action in August without reference to Sir Antony MacDonnell or anybody else. On the

  437
  details of the scheme and in getting it into shape I received much valuable help and assistance from Sir Antony MacDonnell, for which 1 am very grateful to him. As is very natural. I had many long conversations with Mr. George Wyndham and with Sir Antony MacDonnell on all kinds of subjects and topics connected with Ireland—not conversations with the Chief Secretary or Under-Secretary, but perfectly informal conversations and talks with Mr. Wyndham and Sir Antony MacDonnell. Among other subjects, we have often discussed the condition of what I may call moderate opinion in Ireland, the possibility of in any way making that opinion articulate, and the possibility, in fact, of creating anything like a Moderate Central Party.
  I have always expressed my views freely on the matter. I thought that there did exist in Ireland a large body of moderate opinion, lethargic like moderate opinion generally is. Moderate opinion, so far as Unionists are concerned, disinclined, I thought, to any great organic changes, but profoundly dissatisfied with the existing system of Departmental Government in Ireland. I thought it dangerous that these legitimate causes of dissatisfaction felt by them should not be remedied. I thought it perfectly useless to start, or to help to create, a Moderate Party on a purely academic basis. I thought it absolutely essential to have a positive, constructive, democratic policy—the policy which has been wrought out in our proposals for devolution. On those ideas, broadly speaking, I have talked over and over again both with Mr. Wyndham and with Sir Antony MacDonnell. My impression always was—perhaps I may have been entirely wrong—that Sir Antony MacDonnell's views did not coincide with mine, but rather leaned to action on totally different lines. My impression also was that Mr. Wyndham saw no particular objection to a general scheme of administrative reform proposed by perfectly independent and private individuals being put forward for public criticism and discussion.
  I remember very well having conversations with Mr. Wyndham and Sir Antony MacDonnell, not on any particular scheme or idea, but on the subject of a Moderate Party generally; and it was
  438
  suggested—I do not remember by whom—that Sir Antony MacDonnell should invite some gentlemen to meet me who might be useful to me in forming the nucleus of such a Party. That idea was abandoned. I have a letter from Sir Antony MacDonnell, dated October, 1903, in which he says—
  "I have been thinking over our conversation the other day."
  He was referring to the conversation I have mentioned; he could not have been referring to anything else. He abandoned the idea of asking the gentlemen to meet me, because, as he writes—
  "The business would speedily become known, and it would be said that Lord Dunraven was forming a new Irish Party."
  To that Sir Antony MacDonnell did not see any particular objection, but he went on to say—
  "If the first meeting were held in my house, or at my invitation, everyone would say that Mr. Wyndham was a prime mover in the business."
  And he added—
  "Any help I can give I shall be happy to give by supplying you with facts and information, but I think, and in this Mr. Wyndham, to whom I have spoken, agrees with me, it is better I should not appear prominently, or even to the extent of inviting men to meet you."
  By that letter, my Lords, I have been guided ever since, and so, I believe, has Sir Antony MacDonnell. I had other talks with Mr. Wyndham last summer on this subject—if I remember rightly they were relative to certain propositions that were made to me, but which did not at all commend themselves to me—and the matter dropped until, as I have already told your Lordships, it was revived last August.
  I think it was on the day before the meeting of the Land Conference Committee, when it was dissolved, that I first spoke on this subject to Sir Antony MacDonnell. I then asked him for information and advice on the subject, and I cannot imagine anything more natural for me to do. We had determined to create an association; we had decided that the principal plank in our policy was an extension of self-government to Ireland; we had decided upon the lines on which we were going—the lines indicated in the circular—namely, devolution, delegation of authority. I cannot

  439
  imagine anything more natural in the circumstances for me to do than to ask for information and advice from the man who probably was better able to give me information and advice than any other human being in the country.
  The publication of our first report on August 31st led to a great clamour, in Ireland, at any rate, for fuller particulars. Personally, I was averse to giving fuller particulars at that time. I did not think that the end of August was a very good period of the year for doing business. So far as I myself was concerned, I was on a yachting cruise, but, as a matter of fact, I was out of action, being in very dubious enjoyment of complete repose, owing to a very violent attack of gout in both my feet. All my colleagues were scattered about Ireland and were difficult to get at. In these circumstances I wrote to Sir Antony MacDonnell and asked him to draft out the heads of a more elaborate scheme on the lines of our first report, and he very kindly did so and sent them down to me in Kerry. Shortly afterwards he paid me a visit on his way to stay with my noble friend the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) and spent two days with me. We had plenty of time for going very thoroughly into the matter and we pretty well mapped out a report.
  I was in a certain difficulty. Our first report had somehow or other been published in the London Press the day before we gave it out for publication in Ireland, which indicated a rather serious leakage somewhere in our machinery. I did not want that to occur again. I did want, however, to get a number of copies of the draft made as soon as I had perfected it to the best of my ability, and not knowing where to get them made I mentioned my difficulty to Sir Antony MacDonnell. I suggested to him, or he suggested to me—I do not know which, but I think he suggested to me—that if 1 would send him the draft when I had perfected it he would get sufficient copies typewritten for me to circulate among my colleagues on the organising committee, and this was done.
  This draft was considered by the organising committee and amended considerably. It was then brought up at a meeting of the association, considered,
  440
  amended, and adopted, and published on September 26th. Shortly after that came the Chief Secretary's letter in The Times, and shortly after that I received a letter from Sir Antony MacDonnell to say that in the circumstances I must understand that he did not feel himself to be at liberty any longer to give me any assistance of any kind. That, my Lords, is, I think, the whole history of the case, and I submit to your Lordships that the charges formulated by the Solicitor-General as charges made by Irish Unionists are absolutely disproved. I deny these charges which have been made, not by "the" Irish Unionists, as Sir Edward Carson says, but by some Irish Unionists. For this policy the Irish Reform Association is alone responsible; it was initiated two years ago by certain members of the Land Conference Committee, out of which the Irish Reform Association was formed; and we determined to bring it into active existence last August without consultation with, or the knowledge of, Sir Antony MacDonnell or any other human being. The whole thing was done within the action of the Land Conference Committee. Sir Antony MacDonnell, the very moment that policy was disavowed by his chief, informed me that he could no longer afford us any assistance of any kind. It is untrue to say that he pursued a policy which had been disproved of by his chief. I regret that the disavowal of our policy by the Chief Secretary did not take place a little sooner. Our first report, which was published on August 26th, set out our policy very plainly, and, goodness knows! enough fuss was made about it to attract the attention of a much less active and intelligent mind than that of the Chief Secretary even at ordinary holiday time. But no notice was taken of it. I am curious to know whether any communication passed between the Chief Secretary and Sir Antony MacDonnell on the subject of the first report. I can only say that I received a letter from Sir Antony MacDonnell on September 25th. I think I must have written to him about the dead-set that was being made against him in Ireland, because he writes to the effect that a friend had told him that a strenuous and most persistent effort was

  441
  being made to force the Government to get him to resign his place, and he added—
  "I am bound to say that my relations with Mr. Wyndham are such that I attach very little importance or credence to these rumours."
  I should gather from that letter, without any information to the contrary, that no remonstrance of any kind had been addressed by Mr. Wyndham to Sir Antony MacDonnell between the publication of our first report and our second report. But I am sure of this, that I heard nothing at all from Mr. Wyndham on the subject, and yet our first report sets out our policy pretty plainly, so plainly that I must ask your Lordships to allow me to read one passage from it. We say that—
  "We believe that the maintenance of the Parliamentary Union is compatible with the devolution to Ireland of a larger measure of local government than she now possesses. We consider that this devolution, while avoiding matters of Imperial concern and subjects of common interest to the Kingdom as a whole, would be beneficial to Ireland and would relieve the Imperial Parliament of a mass of business with which it cannot now deal satisfactorily, and which occupies its time to the detriment of much more important concerns. In particular we consider the present system of financial administration to be wasteful. … We think it possible to devise a system of Irish finance whereby expenditure could be conducted in a more efficient and economic manner and whereby the sources of revenue could be expanded. We believe that a remedy for the present unsatisfactory system can be found in such a decentralisation or localisation of Irish finance as will secure to its administration the application of local knowledge, influence, and ability without in any way sacrificing the ultimate control at present possessed by the Imperial Parliament."
  That shows just as plainly as our more detailed second report our objects and intentions, yet I received no intimation of any kind from Mr. Wyndham on the subject after the publication of our first report.
  I do not mean to say for a moment that if I had received an intimation from Mr. Wyndham I should have refrained from pushing this policy to the best of my ability, because I believe it to be absolutely essential both for the benefit of Ireland and the maintenance of the Union. But if I had heard from Mr. Wyndham it would at least have cleared, up the position between myself and Sir Antony MacDonnell, and would have prevented the necessity that I am now under of entering into this long explanation.
  442
  Sir Antony MacDonnell gave me his assistance as to the facts and information which he had promised to give in the letter of October 15th, 1903, which I have quoted to your Lordships. I was glad to have that assistance. I went to him naturally. If I had been proceeding on different lines, say on the lines of the provincial legislatures in Canada, I should have asked for information from somebody who was conversant with, that system; but as we had determined to go on the lines of devolution—something in the nature of a Financial Council—I went to a man who, from his past experience in India of a system analogous to that, was best capable of giving us information.
  I never had any idea of concealment, and certainly the idea could never have entered the head of Sir Antony MacDonnell. Sir Antony MacDonnell knew perfectly well that I would talk this matter over with both Mr. Wyndham and Lord Dudley when I met them. Is it conceivable, in these circumstances, that any man in his senses would have given me all that information, knowing that he was bound to maintain secrecy, without asking me to connive with him in thus deceiving his superior officer? I do not know whether, under ordinary circumstances, there is anything in the least improper in a civil servant giving this kind of information. If that is so, I would respectfully suggest that it would be a good thing to have a schedule of the topics which may be discussed between a private individual and an official in his private capacity.
  When Sir Antony MacDonnell was appointed it was currently stated that his appointment was of a very exceptional character. Whether that is so or not, and, if so, to what extent it was exceptional, perhaps my noble friend the noble Marquess when he replies will be able to tell us; but, whether that be so or not, of this I am certain, that it never entered into Sir Antony MacDonnell's head that in giving me the assistance he did he was in any way going behind the back of his superior officer. I must apologise for taking up your Lordships' time at this length, but I think noble Lords will agree with me that the charge made against me individually and against

  443
  my friends in the Irish Reform Association is of so serious a nature that I was bound to justify myself before your Lordships from my place in this House. I have, of course, been obliged incidentally to frequently mention Sir Antony MacDonnell by name. It is not my business in any way to defend him; my object is to defend myself and my colleagues. But I will say this of Sir Antony MacDonnell. I have not had the honour of his acquaintance very long, but I have become intimately acquainted with him during the last two or three years, and I will say that a more impartial-minded man, a man more absolutely and fearlessly honest, a man more incapable of acting in any way disloyally behind the back of his chief, it has never been my privilege to meet.
  THE EARL OF WESTMEATH: My Lords, it will not be necessary for me to trouble the House at any length this afternoon, but I do not wish to let this occasion pass without expressing the relief which I, in common with all my colleagues and associates among the Unionists of Ireland, feel that His Majesty's Government, and particularly the Chief Secretary, have at length, almost at the point of the bayonet, consented to give us some explanation of this matter which has been troubling us so long. I do not think, my Lords, that it is possible for me to exaggerate the extreme sense of uneasiness which loyalists all over Ireland have been feeling at the vagaries of an official who, apparently without the sanction of his official chief, has taken upon himself to inaugurate a policy in Ireland which we Unionists emphatically and entirely disapprove of, and from which we wish in every way to dissociate ourselves.
  All over Ireland the feeling has been one of great unrest, because we never know in Ireland whom we ought to attack. The Chief Secretary is nominally responsible to Parliament for Irish administration, but, rightly or wrongly, an impression has gained ground that the present Chief Secretary, Mr. Wyndham, has practically abdicated the position he ought to occupy, and the power has gradually passed from his hands into those of his official junior. There are even rumours that no less a person than
  444
  the Lord-Lieutenant is not entirely without a policy of his own, and occasionally even my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor of Ireland is referred to in this connection, though I feel confident that in his case his instincts, when he is allowed to give proper expression to them, are on the right side. We feel that we have been badly treated by being kept so long in the dark in regard to this matter, and we demand to know what official, if any, is responsible for these absurd schemes.
  I am one of those who do not like making a scapegoat of any one particular person unless I feel perfectly confident that that is the person who deserves the blame. For that reason I have, in common with many others, felt the greatest reluctance in joining in the campaign, as it has been called, which has been conducted against Sir Antony MacDonnell all over Ireland and in this country; but when we find so important an official as the Attorney-General for Ireland breaking what I believe was the silence of years and going up to his constituents and urging them to insist upon the origin of this scheme being announced publicly, and when we find no less a person in England than the Solicitor-General also insisting on this point, then it is perfectly plain that some such pronouncement as was made yesterday by the Chief Secretary becomes absolutely necessary. I think the statement which the Chief Secretary made yesterday has abundantly justified the attitude which we Unionists in Ireland have been forced to take. I certainly think this matter is one which should have been set at rest before.
  The noble Earl, Lord Dunraven, who has occupied so large a share of public attention lately, has been appealed to over and over again to set this matter at rest. He has chosen not to do so. He has preferred to allow the unrest to go on. I do think this is a serious want of thought on the part of one who has lately been hailed by the somewhat exclusive title of the most thoughtful man in Ireland by one of that small but enthusiastic group of admirers who follow the noble Earl about from place to place, and who appear to play very much the same part as the Chorus in the Greek plays.

  445
  I think His Majesty's Government, knowing the unrest which has existed all over Ireland, might have taken an earlier opportunity of disavowing any connection on the part of the Government with this scheme. I think they have shown a self-denial and a meekness worthy of earlier days when we consider that not so very long ago Sir Antony MaeDonnell went down to the West of Ireland and there permitted himself to receive an address from the Nationalist body congratulating him on his superior breadth of mind, and his general superiority over the, rest of his colleagues. I believe that was so. I have never seen any contradiction of it, and I think a more improper action for a civil servant to take it would be impossible to imagine.
  Let us hope, my Lords, that this showup, if I may call it so, this fiasco will bring about the end of the policy of which we so bitterly complain—the policy of truckling to disloyalty and trying to conciliate those who will not be conciliated. The ignorance of people in this country with regard to Irish affairs never seems to grow less. As a small matter, I may mention that a few days ago I was travelling over from Ireland with an Englishman who had been spending a week in that country. He said, in the course of conversation, "Oh, you have no more real grievances in Ireland. You only bring them forward pour rire." When I recollected that the whole of his time had been spent in official circles in Dublin I was not so much astonished at that remark as I otherwise would have been. I would appeal to my noble friend Lord Dunraven to leave Ireland alone in future. He has taken up the land question, the University question, and Home Rule in disguise. Now, I earnestly suggest to him that he should remain in this country and take up some question here which will give vent to his great energy. What we want in Ireland is to be let alone. We want to manage our own affairs. We want to be free from agitators and faddists with, no doubt, excellent intentions.
  With regard to the question of Private Bill legislation, there is a general feeling that if something in the nature of devolution could be brought about it would be
  446
  a good thing. At the same time, I have never heard that any body has been suggested which would command the confidence of Unionists and Nationalists alike. I am very much afraid that if any tribunal of this kind could be constituted it would fall under the sinister influences which have made the position in Ireland what it is to-day. I wish, however, to say that if at any future time anything of this kind should be proposed I do not think Unionists should be considered bigoted if they scrutinise such proposals with great care and caution. The time may possibly come when Unionists and Nationalists may be able to work together, but that time has not come yet; and any attempt to force a union on lines which are not generally accepted by the country will only lead to trouble and annoyance and a repetition of the painful incident we are discussing to-day.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I am sure the House will agree with me that Lord Dunraven has, to say the least, cleared the air in regard to this question of devolution. We now know that the scheme originated with the noble Earl and his colleagues, and that he consulted with the Under-Secretary upon it. Let me leave that for one moment and allude to the speech which has just been made by my noble friend Lord Westmeath. The noble Lord has attacked everyone all round; he has attacked the Government; he has attacked the Chief Secretary; he has attacked Lord Dunraven; and he has attacked the Under-Secretary. Living in Ireland as I do, and taking a great interest in affairs there, I feel quite certain that the Chief Secretary can well take care of himself, especially after his pronouncement in denial of the devolution policy which appeared in The Times. I quite understand the attitude which Lord Westmeath has taken up, because he was one of those noble Lords who, at the time we were trying to arrive at a little peace in Ireland, set his face entirely against it. He was one of those with whom we had the greatest difficulty in dealing, and therefore your Lordships must not take quite seriously all the very hard words he has just uttered.
  As I was a member of the Land Conference I should like to take this public opportunity of denying that there was

  447
  any bargain whatever made with the Nationalists in the Land Conference, These sort of rumours have been flying about all over the country, and now at last we have got to the bottom of things and know where we are. There was not even any chaff about there being Home Rule, or about our having any arrangement with them whatever. I am not one of those who joined Lord Dunraven in his devolution scheme, but there are parts of it with which I agree, notably the part referring to Private Bill procedure. I deny that there are not some means by which Private Bills could be dealt with in Ireland instead of being sent over at enormous cost to be dealt with at Westminster. If Irishmen are clever enough to come to an arrangement with regard to the land question, I think we can come to an arrangement with regard to Private Bill procedure, having before us the example of Scotland. I have to thank Lord Dunraven for clearing the air. I think, however, there are portions of his speech which, with all due deference to him, were somewhat mischievous, but we do not mind a little mischief in Ireland. We can get over it. We now, at any rate, know where we are, and can go ahead with that part of the scheme which does not tend to what Lord Westmeath described as absolute Home Rule.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, I do not rise for the purpose of interfering in the interesting domestic quarrels of the Irish Unionist Party. I leave them very readily to settle those I matters among themselves. But I feel bound to rise for the purpose of saying something in respect to my right hon. friend Sir Antony MacDonnell. Sir Antony MacDonnell served under me when I was Viceroy of India. I have known him for a long time. I entertain the very highest opinion of the services which he rendered in India, and I am glad to see that my noble friend the noble Marquess opposite concurs in that opinion. For those services when he left India he received the highest distinction, except a Peerage, which can be given to any person in the Civil Service of this country. He was selected by Her Majesty's Government to be made an English Privy Councillor. He is a man of long and
  448
  very varied experience. It was not, I believe, at any solicitation of his that His Majesty's Government selected him for the post of Under-Secretary in Ireland. I believe they picked him out because they thought him a man of great experience in administration, and of great ability, who would ably oecupy the position of Under-Secretary in Ireland. That being so, and looking to his past career, I cannot help thinking that it is probable that they did not expect him altogether to confine either his activity or his influence within any narrow sphere of official duty.
  There was a very famous Irish Under-Secretary towards the middle of last century, a man whose name is still cherished in Ireland—I mean Mr. Thomas Drummond. Mr. Thomas Drummond was subjected, at the time he held the office of Under-Secretary, to very much the same attacks from precisely the same quarters as those that are now being directed against Sir Antony MacDonnell. Mr. Drummond was gallantly defended in the House of Commons by Lord Morpeth, who was then Chief Secretary for Ireland. Mr. Drummond held office for something like five years, and he has left a memory in Ireland which I believe, to be still green. But is it to be supposed, or does anybody who knows the history of those times imagine, that Mr. Thomas Drummond was only employed by the Government upon the ordinary routine duties of the office of Under-Secretary? I trow not, and I cannot help thinking that it is highly probable that when Sir Antony MacDonnell was appointed his position was very similar in reality to that which Mr. Thomas Drummond filled.
  I was very much struck by the statement in the speech made by my noble friend Lord Dunraven that certainly on one, if not on more than one, occasion he had an interview with Mr. Wyndham and Sir Antony MacDonnell together, and that at that interview or interviews Irish affairs were freely discussed. That in itself, I think, shows that the Chief Secretary employed Sir Antony MacDonnell in a different manner from that in which possibly persons of less experience might have been employed. Therefore, I think I may fairly conclude— my noble friend opposite will correct me

  449
  if I am wrong—that the position which Sir Antony MacDonnell held was considered to be one of more extent and scope than that which other persons might have been allowed to occupy. It is, I think, remarkable, as the noble Earl said, that when the first report was published by the body which he got together, a document which certainly attracted considerable amount of public attention at the time, no communication was received by him from the Chief Secretary.
  Surely we may conclude that in acting as he did—I am speaking of his action generally in communicating with outside persons with a degree of freedom perhaps unusual—Sir Antony MacDonnell was consistently keeping within the terms and conditions of his appointment. I have always understood that at the time of the preparation of the Land Bill Sir Antony MacDonnell was in communication with all sorts and conditions of men, including some who would be most obnoxious to noble Lords opposite, and that he had a considerable hand in the preparation of that successful measure. Then, again, there is the question of Irish University education. How was Sir Antony MacDonnell engaged in that matter? I should like to know whether I am right in thinking that he did hold, and was known by the Irish Government to hold, a position somewhat superior and wider than that of a mere ordinary subordinate officer. I am sure my noble friend opposite, when he addresses the House, will agree with me when I say that from our knowledge of the character of Sir Antony MacDonnell it is perfectly impossible that he could have been guilty of any improper or unworthy conduct. Any man may make a mistake, but it is the one thing which cannot be possible of a man of Sir Antony MacDonnell's high character that he should have done anything which deserves serious censure of a moral kind.
  But there is one matter upon which we have no further information. The noble Earl, it has been said, has made a clean breast of it, and the noble Lord who just sat down rejoiced that we had now got to the bottom of this matter. But there is one person of whom nothing has been said—I refer to the Viceroy. Sir Antony
  450
  MacDonnell was appointed by, and was in constant communication with, the Viceroy. The Viceroy is not here tonight, but, if it is possible, I think it ought to be stated, in justice to Sir Antony MacDonnell, to what extent he was in communication with Lord Dudley upon the details of this question. Whatever may be the result of this discussion, I cannot but hope that your Lordships, whatever may be your opinions or feelings with regard to questions of Irish administration or Irish government, will not allow yourselves to be carried away by misrepresentations. Great misrepresentations have been made, but I trust your Lordships will not allow yourselves to be carried away by the strange forgetfulness of the Solicitor-General of the honourable understanding which exists between political and non-political servants of the Crown, and that whatever may be your views of my noble friend's scheme, you will not be ready to commit an injustice to one of the most distinguished servants that India has ever had.
  LORD RATHMORE: My Lords, I have no quarrel with Lord Dunraven's aspirations for the appeasement of unfortunate controversies in Ireland, and for the formation of what he calls a Party of moderate views on all Irish subjects. But setting rolling again the ball of Home Rule, which the noble Earl has undoubtedly done, is not the way to assuage the bitter controversies in Ireland which formerly raged over that subject, and which I, at any rate, had hoped were settling down. The noble Earl referred to the speech of the Attorney-General for Ireland. I had no idea he was going to refer to it or I would have refreshed my memory with regard to it. I cannot very accurately recall the particular part of the speech to which the noble Earl referred, and, therefore, I will not attempt to answer him; but I do remember that the speech of the Attorney-General for Ireland was a very powerful and, as I thought, complete destructive criticism of the plan with which the name of the noble Earl has been associated, and I also remember that he again and again called upon the noble Earl to let us know whether he had received any assistance from other quarters. The noble Earl,

  451
  however, gave no answer to those appeals or to the other appeals made to him until the disclosure we have now before us was made.
  I do not propose to occupy your Lordships' time on the present occasion by arguing with the noble Earl upon the general scheme which he has propounded. I would only incidentally refer to those clauses of the devolution scheme which were intended, I suppose, to create, and which certainly would have had the effect of creating, a subordinate Legislative Assembly in Ireland, composed mainly of Irish Members of Parliament and Irish Peers, with vaguely adumbrated functions and powers, which, from the nature of the scheme, were capable of indefinite extension. The noble Earl has told us that his scheme contains safeguards which he evidently considers would have had the effect of preventing the undue expansion of the powers he proposes to confer on this subordinate Legislature in Ireland, and would have maintained the absolute supremacy of the Imperial Parliament. But we were familiar with the same protestations from the lips of Mr. Gladstone when he introduced and endeavoured to carry his Home Rule Bills in 1886 and in 1893. That question was thoroughly gone into at that time. The judgment of the nation was challenged upon it. The greatest political controversy of a hundred years was fought over it, and we had thought that that controversy had been set at rest for ever.
  I will not attempt to deal with the argument of the noble Earl on this subject. I have no doubt that he is sincere in his belief that his scheme is of a harmless and milk-and-water character, and that it is unjust to give it the nickname of Home Rule. I am content to say that if the noble Lord holds that opinion, he and his immediate followers are the only people in the three kingdoms who do. No sooner was his scheme published than the Chief Secretary thought it necessary to declare to the public that the Government had nothing whatever to do with it, that they could not tolerate or support it, and that they would never consent to the establishment of a subordinate Legislature in Ireland. Not only did the Chief Secretary repudiate it, but all the organs of Conservative
  452
  opinion denounced it as Home Rule in disguise, while the organs of the Liberal Unionist Party in Ireland denounced it as worse than the Home Rule of Mr. Gladstone. Not only the Unionist Party in Ireland, but also the Nationalist Party understood perfectly well what it was. No doubt they nobly proclaimed that it bore no affinity to the grander scheme which they would prefer, but I may say that any language used by my right hon. friend the Solicitor-General for England was mild in comparison to the language of contempt which a great many of the Irish patriots showered upon the proposals of the noble Earl. The Nationalists gladly accepted his destructive criticism of the existing state of affairs in Ireland. They adopted all the premises of his argument, and then contemptuously told him that the principles he had adopted would carry him much further than his halfway house, and that he was sowing seed which must have fruit of a much more important description. I do not know whether the noble Earl will find any supporters of his view as to the innocency of his scheme, but if he believes that the scheme is anything other than Home Rule in disguise or in embryo, then in that opinion he stands alone.
  But, my Lords, what I thought we were going to discuss to-day was the speech of my right hon. friend the Solicitor-General, Sir E. Carson. It is not necessary for me to make any eulogy of Sir E. Carson. He won for himself in Ireland the first position at the Irish Bar. He transferred his professional labours to England, and, with extraordinary rapidity, obtained a place second to none at the English Bar. That great profession, with the generosity for which it is famous, accepted him and gave him all the honours which he had fairly won. Sir E. Carson is not only distinguished in his own profession, he has been identified with Unionism not only in these easier times, but in the dark days of the Land League and in the later struggles in the House of Commons. My right hon. friend was attending a quasi-political dinner, and, in the course of his speech, made some observations to which I think the noble Earl has very wisely made but a cursory reference. At that meeting

  453
  Sir E. Carson, speaking on behalf of the Irish Unionists, deplored the fact that many of them intimated that they could no longer support His Majesty's Government—
  "It is," he continued, "the duty of the Government, of which I am a member, and which exists in power for the purpose of maintaining the Union, to sift to the bottom, and, if possible satisfy, the grievances of our fellow-Unionists in Ireland."
  I suppose the noble Earl would not object to that part of the speech. Then Sir E. Carson proceeded to describe the devolution scheme. I will not quote the language he used—it might not be agreeable to the noble Earl—but he said that he himself would much prefer Imperial Union to any such tampering with constitutional government. He added that the scheme had not attracted many Unionists from their ranks. That is perfectly true, my Lords. I do not believe the noble Earl can name a score of men in the whole of Ireland, in the Unionist Party at all events, whose names are known or who have any influence whatever in the country, who have followed him in this crazy scheme of devolution.
  The plain meaning of the whole speech of my right hon. friend was that it was the immediate duty of the Government to set at rest the suspicions of an important section of their followers, and that those suspicions, even if unfounded, should not be allowed to go uncontradicted. He did not make any accusation against Sir Antony MacDonnell or express his belief in the suspicions that had been aroused. Sir E. Carson did not, as a matter of fact, know at the I time that these suspicions were well founded, but he saw that they were creating distrust and almost mutiny among the most loyal supporters of the Government. He said that if they were true, such conduct on the part of a permanent official was a scandal to the Civil Service. These were strong words, no doubt, but are they stronger words than have been used by the Cabinet themselves in the message they sent to Sir Antony MacDonnell telling him that his conduct was indefensible. We have now arrived at the truth of the matter, partly, I think, in consequence of the action taken my right hon. friend; and I
  454
  say that, so far from being blameworthy from any point of view for what he said on that occasion, Sir E. Carson has done his duty not only to the Civil Service and to the Unionist Party but to the country at large.
  I can assure your Lordships that I have no sort of personal feeling or animus of any kind against Sir Antony MacDonnell. I have not the pleasure of being acquainted with him, but from what has been told me by friends of mine who were with him in India, I should be inclined to agree that every word we have heard in his praise from the noble Marquess opposite is true. There is no doubt that Sir Antony MacDonnell was a very powerful and successful administrator in India, and in that way did good service to the Government under which he served. But, my Lords, I have also heard from my friends who were in India at that time that he was known to hold most advanced opinions on Irish matters, and that he earned for himself the sobriquet of "The Fenian"—of course not in any felonious sense. I feel not only no antagonism to Sir Antony MacDonnell, but considerable pride, as his fellow-countryman, that he has added another Irish name to the long list of famous men who have been identified with the expansion and safeguarding of our great Indian Empire; but all that can be said in favour of Sir Antony MacDonnell as a useful servant of the Crown in connection with India strengthens my amazement at his being transferred to Ireland. I cannot understand under what unhappy influence he was removed from his place on the Indian Council, where no doubt his experience and ability enabled him to be of great service, and sent to Ireland.
  All Sir Antony MacDonnell's experience of government has been of the autocratic kind which prevails in India, and he was well known to be a man of domineering temperament and the most advanced views on Irish politics—yet this powerful influence was let loose in Ireland upon a community which is only too easily excited by influences of this kind. The noble Earl, Lord Dunraven, has taken exception to the suggestion that Sir Antony MacDonnell "evolved" this scheme of devolution, but according to the Chief Secretary himself, who has denounced this scheme, Sir Antony

  455
  MacDonnell assisted in "discussing and formulating" its proposals. The position is worthy of a comic opera. The Undersecretary to the Lord-Lieutenant sits in Dublin Castle formulating a scheme for establishing some form of Home Rule in Ireland which is immediately denounced by his own Chief Secretary whose subordinate he was supposed to be and also by the Prime Minister as inadmissible and not to be entertained for one moment. I do not wish to speak of Sir Antony MacDonnell in any hostile spirit, but his retention in the office of Undersecretary under a Unionist Government is grotesque. Personally, I should be only too glad if some sphere of honourable and useful employment under the Crown could be found for him out of Ireland—some sphere in which his great abilities could he utilised; but in the circumstances which have arisen his retention in the position of Under-Secretary is really impossible, and I trust that the noble Lord who will speak for the Government will give us some more definite information on that subject than we heard from the Chief Secretary in the other House.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I cannot help thinking that I shall best consult the convenience of the House by avoiding any attempt at a discussion of the merits of the proposals embodied in Lord Dunraven's scheme, which has been analysed rather mercilessly by the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down. The merits of the scheme are not now before roar Lordships' House and whether it deserves the more moderately worded condemnation which it has received at the hands of His Majesty's Government or the more trenchant vituperation it has encountered in other quarters does not, so far as we are concerned this evening, matter very much. In the same way, I doubt whether we can very profitably enter this evening into an examination of those other charges which have been brought against Sir Antony MacDonnell, and which were referred to by the noble Lord on the Back Benches. What I should like to say with regard to them is that, if any noble Lord chooses to bring them up in this House, we shall be prepared
  456
  to meet them. They have been met in another place by my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary, and, although I cannot pretend to have entered minutely into them, I know that to some, at all events, of the counts of the indictment a triumphant answer is forthcoming.
  I may, however, notice now one particular incident to which the noble Lord behind me referred, that of the address of welcome presented to Sir Antony MacDonnell on his return to his native country. It was not very unnatural that an address should be tendered to him on his return to his home after many long years of brilliant service in India, but so strongly did he feel that any manifestations of this kind were dangerous that he actually refused to receive a public address, and the address which he did receive was, I believe, presented to him informally in the drawing-room of a private house, and under circumstances which made it, in his opinion, unnecessary that he should greatly concern himself as to the language in which it was worded. He had no idea it was to be made public, and no one was more surprised than Sir Antony MacDonnell when it appeared in the newspapers.
  But the subject before the House this evening is the speech delivered by the Solicitor-General. As to that, let me say at once that I accept unreservedly the interpretation put upon it by the noble and learned Lord. I understood that speech as implying, in the first place, a strong expression of opinion that, as a matter of principle, it is wrong for the members of the Civil Service to concern themselves in political movements, and, in the next place, I understood the Solicitor-General to say that, if it was indeed true that Sir Antony MacDonnell had been the originator of this scheme, the matter was one which required further discussion—I think the expression he used was that it should be sifted and set at rest. The statement of the noble Earl, Lord Dunraven, threw an important light upon that particular point, for we learned from him that it cannot be said that Sir Antony MacDonnell was in the proper sense of the word the originator of the Dunraven scheme. That is stated categorically. We accept that statement of the noble Earl; but we must also accept from him

  457
  that there is no doubt that Sir Antony MacDonnell was called in and did take part in putting the scheme into shape.
  I will notice at this moment, lest I should forget it afterwards, the question which was asked by, I think, the noble Lord on the Back Benches. He asked why it was that the Chief Secretary did not at once put his foot down when the first notice of the scheme of the Irish Reform Association appeared in the newspapers. I think the answer is a two-fold one. In the first place, the first statement was much shorter, and was couched in much more general and indefinite terms than the second statement. I am speaking from memory, but I am almost confident that your Lordships would not find in the first statement the two particular proposals to which the Chief Secretary afterwards took special exception—I mean the proposal for the creation of a Financial Council, partly elected, and the proposal for the establishment of a statutory body to which legislation of a particular kind, and under specified restriction, was to be entrusted. But whether or not, I am bound to add this, that the first scheme appeared in The Times at a moment when, after a particularly arduous session, the Chief Secretary, who is, after all, a mortal man, was taking a well-deserved holiday—I believe he was on the Continent at the time—and when lie could hardly be expected to rush into print The moment he saw an announcement of this land in the newspapers, without any particular knowledge of the circumstances under which it was made.
  There has been so much controversy as to the facts of the case that I think it almost worth while to recapitulate very briefly those facts which have been ascertained, and which are not controverted, because there are a good many statements which are open to a good deal of controversy. In the autumn of 1904 the noble Earl and his friends were working out proposals for an improved scheme of local government for Ireland. We know that they called in Sir Antony MacDonnell, with whom they had on many previous occasions been in the habit of conferring, and with whom they had been in the habit of conferring with the full knowledge and approval of the Chief Secretary. We know also that
  458
  Sir Antony MacDonnell's assistance was readily given; and we know that in the result the scheme of the noble Earl made its appearance, not, of course, as in any sense a scheme officially inspired, but as a scheme put forward by him and his friends as a basis for the discussion they desired to initiate upon the subject of Irish local government. When the noble Earl's scheme was made public, the Chief Secretary at once thought it his duty to make it known that, in his opinion, it was opposed to Unionist principles and that it was one from which His Majesty's Government desired entirely to dissociate themselves, and he dwelt particularly upon the two proposals which I described a moment ago. Upon that Sir Antony MacDonnell at once placed himself in communication with the noble Earl, and intimated to him that his connection with the noble Earl's association must from that moment cease and come to an end.
  My Lords, these are the events as they happened, and upon these events His Majesty's Government took the following action. They intimated to Sir Antony MacDonnell that in thus connecting himself with the preparation and publication of these proposals he had been led into an error which they were unable to defend. But they added at the same time that they did not regard his conduct as open to the imputation of disloyalty, and that they did not in any way call in question his candour and integrity.
  That is a bare historical statement of the facts which I thought it might be convenient that I should lay before your Lordships' House. But such a statement is perhaps not quite sufficient, in view of the speeches to which we have listened this evening; and I have to ask your Lordships to consider with me for a moment the circumstances in which this mistake of Sir Antony MacDonnell's was made. I think it necessary to take that course. I think it is clue to him; I think it is due to us. I think it is due to him, because it is right that the circumstances under which he took this action should be understood. It is due to us because, if half the charges which have been made against Sir Antony MacDonnell

  459
  were true, we should deserve to be assailed for not having treated him with infinitely greater severity.
  Now, my Lords, Sir Antony MacDonnell came home from India in 1902, having served in that country for nearly forty years. During his career, after a long and laborious apprenticeship in a number of minor appointments, he held successively a series of the highest and most responsible posts in the Indian service. He was at different times at the head of the Government of Burma, at the head of the Government of the Central Provinces, with a population of 12,000,000 committed to his charge, and he was Chief Commissioner of the North-West Provinces, with a population of no fewer than 47,000,000 under his government. Subsequently he became a member of the Viceroy's Council, and on his return home, as the noble Marquess reminded us, he had the high honour of a place in the Privy Council conferred upon him. Now, my Lords, during that long and arduous service in India Sir Antony MacDonnell had to deal with the most difficult of the many difficult problems with which Indian statesmen are confronted. He dealt with great famines, and, thanks to his administration, waves of distress, the volume of which we can scarcely conceive in this country, passed over the districts committed to his charge and left the population scathless behind them. He dealt with religious difficulties in a country where there are cleavages of religion and race as bitter even as those which are to be found on the other side of the Irish Channel. He dealt with the great and intricate problems of Indian land tenure—problems as complicated as any with which we are familiar in these islands. And may I say that during the five years which I spent in India, years during which I was constantly in contact with Sir Antony MacDonnell, and had ample opportunity of watching his work, I came to the conclusion that amongst the many able, distinguished, and upright men with whom I had to deal no one was more distinguished, more able, or more upright.
  I was sorry to hear my noble and learned friend trump up an old story that he was nick-named "The Fenian."
  460
  I never heard the story during my stay in India, nor did I ever hear that while he was in India he ever proclaimed himself a partisan in regard to Irish politics, or asserted any strong views of his own in regard to them. My impression is that most of our Indian administrators have plenty to do in attending to Indian affairs, and that while they are absorbed in the duties of their posts they are apt to forget for the moment the, by comparison, almost microscopic affairs of these little islands. May I add as a personal reminiscence that, when I arrived in India, Lord Dufferin, another eminent Irishman, mentioned to me the name of Sir Antony MacDonnell as a man without reproach with whom I could safely confer upon the most delicate questions, and who was what likely to render me the most invaluable service?
  Well, my Lords, Sir Antony MacDonnell came back to this country with this great reputation and experience, and I am bound to say that it seemed to me that if ever there was an Irishman from whom it might be hoped that he would be able on his return to his own country to render good service in Ireland, that man was Sir Antony MacDonnell; and it was in the belief that he was such a man that I introduced him to the Chief Secretary. He produced on the Chief Secretary the same favourable impression that he had produced on me. At that moment there was no vacancy in the Under-Secretary-ship; but not long afterwards the post became vacant, and the Chief Secretary offered it to Sir Antony MacDonnell. I think it is right that your Lordships should remember that when he accepted that onerous and almost thankless office he sacrificed for the sake of it a place on the Secretary of State's Council, a place full of interesting but not excessive work, most honourable to a man who has retired from the Indian service and which naturally must have had great temptations for him. And I do not think I am committing an indiscretion when I say that not long afterwards Sir Antony MacDonnell forwent another appointment in India, the appointment of Governor of the Province of Bombay, one of the most honourable in the whole of India, which was within his reach if he had chosen to be a candidate for it.

  461
  Now I suggest to your Lordships that it follows almost as a matter of course that a man of that kind, a man of those antecedents, could scarcely he expected to be bound by the narrow rules of routine which are applicable to an ordinary member of the Civil Service; and I answer the noble Marquess's question by telling him that when Sir Anthony MacDonnell took up this appointment it was understood both by himself and the Chief Secretary that he was to have greater freedom of action, greater opportunities of initiative, than he would have expected if he had been a candidate promoted in the ordinary course. And it was also understood between Sir Antony MacDonnell and the Chief Secretary that there were certain subjects to which their efforts were to be addressed and which they had reasonable hope and expectation of being able to deal with should they remain in office; amongst those subjects one was the coordination of the many detached and semi-detached boards into which the government of Ireland is at present subdivided. Anybody who has studied that question is aware that there is room for considerable improvement in that old-fashioned and complicated organisation. I think I ought to explain that I say this to your Lordships with the knowledge and Concurrence of my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland.
  In these circumstances does it not follow that Sir Antony MacDonnell was justified in assuming that he had more than usual freedom of action? He certainly acted upon that assumption, and acted upon it with the knowledge and approval of the Chief Secretary, and it was with the Chief Secretary's approval that Sir Antony MacDonnell made himself accessible to persons of many kinds and descriptions whose ideas upon important subjects were worth collecting. I maintain that, in endeavouring to arrive at that result, and to break down the barrier which has too long and too often divided Dublin Castle from the rest of the country, my right hon. colleague was taking a step in the right direction, and one for which he deserves the greatest possible credit. It may. I think, fairly be claimed that it was in some measure the result of this happier
  462
  rêgime that that most difficult and intricate measure, the Irish Land Bill, was safely piloted through Parliament. We all knew that Sir Antony MacDonnell took an active part in the preliminary discussions, and in the course of the debates on the Land Bill the noble Earl more than once received congratulations from both sides of the House upon the success that had attended the efforts of himself and his friends to bring about an understanding on difficult technical points.
  Well, that was the situation in the summer of last year. The noble Earl was taking a holiday in the not particularly favourable circumstances he has described to the House, but, although he was taking a holiday, he and his friends were engaged in the elaboration of the scheme they had so much at heart, and Sir Antony MacDonnell was called to their councils. Now, shall I be told that he ought to have refused that invitation? I have no doubt Sir Antony called to mind the understanding upon which he had taken office in 1902. I have no doubt he called to mind conversations and consultations with the noble Earl and his chief, recollecting that the subject of local government was one they had agreed to discuss and examine together. I say, therefore, that it appears to me Sir Antony MacDonnell might well feel himself able to take part in the symposium of the noble Earl with a perfectly clear conscience and without any idea that he was by so doing running counter to the wishes of his chief.
  But while I have no difficulty in arriving at this point, I am bound to say that when as the result of these discussions the question arose of putting forward proposals for the creation of a partly elective financial board and of a statutory body with delegated legislative powers. Sir Antony MacDonnell might well have asked himself whether any instructions or authority that he had ever received covered proposals of that kind. I am sure he honestly believed he was not departing from Unionist principles or running counter to the wishes of his chief, but the fact remains that he did find himself involved in proposals which His Majesty's Government were obliged to repudiate. He interpreted his discretion in one way,

  463
  His Majesty's Government in another. I do not know that the mistake was a very astounding one. It is curious that Sir Antony MacDonnell had a kind of premonition that trouble of this kind might arise, and I will read a passage in a letter he wrote, to a friend at the time he took office—
  "My best friends tell me that I am deluding myself, that I shall be abused by Orangemen as a Roman Catholic and Home Rider, and denounced by Home Rulers as a renegade, that I shall do no good, and that I shall retire disgusted in a year. But I am willing to try."
  I think it did him credit that he tried, and I believe the efforts he made have not been without many excellent results. If at this particular point he overstepped the line which we consider he might have drawn or which might have been drawn for his guidance, we, nevertheless, hold strongly that his conduct has not in any way tarnished the high reputation for loyalty which he brought home with him from that Indian Empire which he served so well to the country of his birth, for which he desired to do something before he died.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I feel that I must say a few words on the very interesting discussion that has taken place to-night. As your Lordships know, I have had considerable experience in Ireland, and particularly understand the relations between the Under-Secretary, the Lord-Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary. I am not going to follow the noble Earl who raised this discussion, nor the noble Lord opposite, Lord Rathmore, into the topics on which they enlarged. I do not think it necessary to discuss the principles of the proposals which the noble Earl and others in Ireland have put forward. All I would say in that connection is that I naturally look with sympathetic interest on those proposals, and shall watch their course with care. But I feel that it is necessary that I should say something with regard to the position of the Under-Secretary and the attacks which, I venture to think, have been unjustly made upon him. The noble Marquess rather put a gloss on the speech of the Solicitor-General. For myself, I certainly think that the language used by the Solicitor-General, though it was put in hypothetical form,
  464
  was hardly such as one member of a Government should employ in reference to another.
  The noble and learned Lord opposite very properly eulogised the many Irishmen who have distinguished thsemselves in India, but he attacked the Government for having appointed Sir Antony MacDonnell to the position he holds in Ireland. On that subject I feel that it is not necessary for me to add to the generous and eloquent defence of Sir Antony MacDonnell which we have heard from the noble Marquess the Leader of the House. I leave the defence of Sir Antony MacDonnell's appointment and conduct entirely in the hands of the noble Marquess. Though some criticism was mingled with the, praise, a great deal turns upon the exceptional conditions upon which Sir Antony MacDonnell received his appointment. An ordinary Under-Secretary would not have been allowed such conditions, but, settled as they were by the Chief Secretary, an entirely different complexion is put upon the action of the Under-Secretary. The conditions to which the noble Marquess referred enumerated some of the questions in connection with which the noble Earl wished to introduce reform. What can be more closely identified with the proposals for reform in Ireland which Lord Dunraven proposes than the coordination of the boards and semi-boards that are so well known to exist in the government of Ireland. These conditions, it seems to me, justify action which an ordinary Under-Secretary would not have taken with regard to all these matters.
  We know that directly Sir Antony MacDonnell noticed the view taken by the Chief Secretary on the detailed proposals which came out later in the newspapers, he at once ceased to give any help of any kind, showing, as I think, his loyalty to the Government. I would go further, and inquire whether he did not lay the effect of his communications with Lord Dunraven before the Lord-Lieutenant himself, and also before the Chief Secretary. It seems to me very improbable that, even under the conditions under which he held the office, he would go so far as he did without keeping

  465
  the Lord-Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary acquainted with all he was doing in the matter. I have said these few words in justice to a very distinguished public servant, against whom I think a most unfair attack has been made. I confess I heard with great satisfaction the statement of the noble Marquess, but I think that even the noble Marquess's criticisms, though they were exceedingly mild, were hardly deserved, considering the remarkable conditions under which Sir Antony MacDonnell was appointed to this office.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (The Marquess of): My Lords, I hope my noble friend Lord Dunraven will not think I am guilty of any discourtesy when I say that he devoted far more time in his speech to an account of the career of the Irish Reform Association, of which he is president, than to the Notice on the Paper. I do not complain of that in the least. He made what I think was a very interesting speech, and I should not have spoken had it not been for the remarks of the noble Earl opposite. I am glad, however, that this discussion has been raised, for it has given His Majesty's Government the opportunity of repudiating entirely any idea of support of any sort or kind to the proposals put forward by the noble Earl and his association. This requires the more emphasis in view of the possibility that at a future time the Liberal Party—personally I think that the time when they will be in office is very far distant—recognising how impossible it would be for them to carry Home Rule, may adopt some such insidious scheme, but they can never taunt the present Government with anything but repudiation of such a scheme.
  I pass on to the attack which has bee n made on the Solicitor-General by the noble Earl opposite. I think the noble Earl entirely misunderstood the speech of my right hon. friend. Had he carefully read that speech he would have recognised that its point turned on the word "if." The Solicitor-General said simply that, if the statements made about
  466
  the actions of Sir Antony MacDonnell, which had created such alarm amongst Irish Unionists, were true, then the conduct of Sir Antony MacDonnell was scandalous. Sir Edward Carson did not assume that the Irish Permanent Undersecretary would have a policy, not only of his own, but one directly opposed to the Government of which he was an official. Therefore, the Solicitor-General considered it his duty to endeavour to allay the alarm which prevailed in Ireland, and, that being so, he was absolutely justified in making the speech. The principal author of the scheme in question, Lord Dunraven, has a quick brain and a very active body, and he always requires some occupation in the recess. At one time it is yacht-racing in America, at another he is evolving some scheme. During the last recess he formulated this scheme. I wonder what his scheme will be next autumn. At any rate, I can say this with regard to the present scheme, that hardly twenty Unionists in Ireland view it with approval.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, if I am in order I should like to supply one omission. The noble Marquess opposite challenged me particularly as to the extent to which the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland was aware of Sir Antony MacDonnell's action. Lord Dudley anticipated that that question might be asked, and he has authorised me to say that he was aware that Sir Antony MacDonnell was helping Lord Dunraven, and that he discussed the reforms suggested in the noble Earl's scheme on several occasions with the Under-Secretary. He adds that he did not think that Sir Antony MacDonnell was exceeding his functions, because, in the first place, he knew that under the terms of his appointment his position differed from that of an ordinary Undersecretary; and, secondly, that on two previous occasions—the Land Conference and the University question—Sir Antony MacDonnell had been in close communication with Lord Dunraven.
  House adjourned at ten minute before Seven o'clock to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.