The daily morning journal and courier., 1905-02-23

was their duty, he said, to produce the documents referred to in debate the
 previous day. He wanted to know if
 Sir Antony Mcdonnell had been au- thOrized to treat with Lord DunraYen. He said Mir. Wyndham admitted that he knew the gist of MacDonnelrs views
 It was strange that he had lately re- pudiated his under-secretary.
 Mir. Wyndham, replying, read the
 letters and then emphatically repeated
 his explanation made during Monday nights debate, in which he had attrib-
 uted the misunderstanding to his ''colos- sal ignorance of Indian affairs" which
 were involved in the plan of the un-
 der-secretary for the control and di- rection of boards and administrative agencies A;s4s5. John Morley, who followed, scathing- ly assailed the governments admins. tration in Ireland. He said Sir An
 tony Mcdonnell had been censured without hearing for doing what he had warned them he would do, and which they had invited him to carry out The Earl of Dudley, lord d-lieutenant of Ireland, MT. Morley said had been overthrown by the premier, and the un-. der-secretarys conduct was described as indefensible. What picture" said
 Mir. Morley, Of confusion of adminis- , tratiye forces worse confound. MT.
 Morley admitted. however, that nothing
 was shown by the correspondence that 1;cia FS ,a eerned.
 Premier Balfour said the letters showed that when Mcdonnell was ap-' pointed under secretary to the lord lieutenant of Ireland, nothing in the shape of deyolution was contemplated. Sir Antony,s conduct. he said, was in- defensible because in respect of the Dunraven scheme he had exceeded the
 bounds laid down. This, however, MT. Balfour said, implied no criticism of his great services. The whole episode
 was due to a misunderstanding and MT, Balfour appealed to the house to bury it. #
 MT. Moore, in behalf of the Irish
 unionists, said the resolution showed that MT. Wyndham had tried to form moderate party in Ireland, which, while directed against the nationalists,
 should have destroyed the Irish union i ist party. This, MT. Moore said, justi- fled the attitude of the Irish unionists toward MT. Wyndharn.
 Mr. Asquith said it was clear that Sir
 Antony MacDonnell had been censured
 for acting under the terms of his ap- pointment. The division followed on motion to adjourn, which was defeat ed, 265 to 223.
 The announcement of the figures was
 greeted with loud shouts from the Irish members of Resign, Wyndham.'
 The following is the gist of the corre- spondence:
 On September 22. 1902, Sir Antony
 Mcdonnell wrote to Chief Secretary Wyndham. after referring to the offer. of the under secretary: T don't see eye | to eye with you in politics or in all matters of Irish administration, and do
 not see any hope In such a regime of
 coercion as the Times recently outlined
 However, I find there is q substantial measure of agreement between us K
 Then, stipulating for adequate oppor- tunity for influencing the policy of the
 acts of the Irish administration sub ject, of course, to your control and for
 freedom Of action in executive mat | ters,'' Mcdonnell specified the points on which he wished to take action,
 namely, maintenance of order, co-ordi-