MR. WHALLKYsaid, he regretted to find that a Question, of which he had given notice, was so worded as to give offence to certain persons. He wished to omit any words from that Question which were calculated to give offence. [Mr. SCULLY: Hear, hear!] He would therefore omit the word "disloyal" from his Question, and simply ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether he has received any information on the subject of the "demonstrations at Dublin, Cork, and other places on the 10th instant;" and whether it is true that "at many of which, as Kilrush and Bellina, an effigy of the Prince of Wales was publicly burned; and whether any investigation is intended as to the nature and extent of the organization manifest in these proceedings "?
§ MR. SCULLYMr. Speaker, I rise to order. In consequence of my notice to the hon. Member for Peterborough he has altered the wording of his Question. Since you, Sir, have occupied the chair of the House, you have laid down a rule that no discussion shall arise upon the putting or answering of a Question, and that no Question shall be so framed as to convey an offensive assertion which cannot be contradicted in this House. Now, the Question of the hon. Member for Peterborough contains no less than five or six offensive assertions which there are no means in this House of contradicting. The Question, however, has been somewhat modified from the notice on the paper, no doubt in consequence of an arrangement come to between the hon. Member for Peterborough and his excellent Friend the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland. [Cries of Order, order!] I am perfectly in order. I have myself risen to order, and having risen to order, I am not to be confined to mere limits. Here, upon the face of this paper, has been put forward by the hon. Member a statement most offensive to the Irish people. The hon. Member has, however, withdrawn the word "disloyal," which he had intended to fling broadcast against the Irish people. But although 1932 he has withdrawn that expression before he ventured to put his Question publicly, it remains upon the books of the House in its original and insulting form. The hon. Member has no right to use the notice paper as a means of advertising his unfounded assertions. He speaks of "Bellina" as a place in Ireland. I suppose he was thinking of Bellona. But whether he means Bellina or Bellona, or some other Roman name, I have never heard of any such place in Ireland. So much for the hon. Member's knowledge of that country. Then it is alleged that the Prince of Wales has been burnt in effigy, but that is a circumstance of which I was totally unaware until I read it on the paper of the House. Nor am I aware of anything like an organization of the kind alluded to by the hon. Member. I might as well talk of an organization amongst the starving people of Staleybridgo as manifesting a disloyal spirit. I now ask you, Sir, whether such language should be allowed, and I shall, of course, bow to your decision.
§ MR. SPEAKERWill the hon. Gentleman point out what he considers to be out of order in the question of the hon. Member for Peterborough?
§ MR. SCULLYI do not think the paper of the House ought to be made use of for the purpose of charging the inhabitants of certain towns in Ireland with disloyal manifestations, and with the burning of the effigy of the Prince of Wales, particularly when there is no truth whatever in the assertion.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe rule of the House is that in putting a Question no argument or opinion is to be offered and no new fact stated, except as far as they may be necessary to explain such Question. The good sense of that regulation must be evident to the House. No matter ought to be propounded as a Question in a form to raise discussion. In the present instance it is quite allowable for the hon. Member to state the facts which are necessary to elucidate his Question. Whether or not the assertions he has made are well founded it is quite beyond my province to determine. It would, of course, be improper, and out of order, for a Member to state as a fact anything which he cannot substantiate. If it is capable of being established as a fact that the effigy of the Prince of Wales has been publicly burnt, then, perhaps, no great difference of opinion would arise, as to the appropriateness of the epithet 1933 disloyal applied to such a transaction, The rule of the House is, as I have stated, that no matter of opinion or argument can be introduced in putting a Question.
§ MR. SCULLYBefore the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland rises to answer the Question, I have a question to put to him. [Cries of Order, order!] I am not out of order. I have written my Question out.
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the hon. Member for Cork was out of order in interrupting the right hon. Baronet when about to answer the Question of the hon. Member for Peterborough.
§ SIR ROBERT PEELSir, I wish first of all to say, with regard to the observations of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Scully), that in the Question which has been put there has been no concurrence between the hon. Member for Peterborough and myself. I never have done, and never will do, such a thing. The hon. Member certainly asked me the other night whether he could put a Question to me with reference to the recent proceedings in Ireland, I said that any hon. Member was at liberty to address to me any inquiry he chose, and that I was bound to answer to the best of my ability. I deny, however, that there was any arrangement whatever between the hon. Member and myself on the subject. As to the Question itself, it is a matter of public notoriety that disturbances occurred in Ireland about the 10th inst. But I am quite sure that no one can reasonably affirm that these demonstrations on the part of a few seditious persons, in two or three localities, are of any weight whatever as faithfully representing the public opinion of Ireland. There have been these demonstrations, but they were extremely partial, and I maintain it would be most unfair to allow them to outweigh the general feeling of loyalty and attachment to the Throne which prevails among the great bulk of the Irish people. With regard to the Question put to me—and I am bound to answer it—as to the burning in effigy of the Prince of Wales, I read in the papers that such a thing did occur; but I do not think too much importance must be attached to that means of displaying feeling, and I will give the reason why.
§ MR. WHITESIDEIn what paper was it stated?
§ SIR ROBERT PEELI understood that the effigy of the Prince of Wales was burnt in the towns of Kilrush and Ballina. Why, in 1861 I saw it publicly announced 1934 in the newspapers that I was myself to be officially burnt in effigy in a town in the west at Ireland. I had never been in that town, and could have given it no offence; but I visited the place on two or three occasions afterwards, and experienced no inconvenience whatever from the warmth of that demonstration. The truth is that the feeling in Ireland is sound at the core; and I am bound to say I believe that in London or anywhere else in England a handful of seditious persons, if organized, might easily break the peace, or any half-dozen or dozen evil-disposed schoolboys interfere with a proposed illumination. But in 1861 I myself witnessed the enthusiasm with which the Sovereign was received when she visited Ireland, and I am satisfied now, in spite of the supposition of the hon. Member, that if the Prince of Wales went, accompanied by his bride, to visit that country, in the course of his progress through the United Kingdom, he would there receive as warm a welcome as could be accorded to any member of the Royal family in any part of the Empire.
§ MR. SCULLYsaid, he would then put the Question of which he had just given notice. Previously to doing so, he wished to apologize both to the right hon. Baronet and the hon. Member for Peterborough, for living imputed any concert between them as to the particular Question to be put and the answer to be given to it. He had made the imputation because he saw the right hon. Baronet rise after communicating with the hon. Member. The Question he wished to ask the Chief Secretary was, whether he regarded the so-called demonstrations in Dublin, Cork, and other places in Ireland, on the 10th inst, as indications of personal disloyalty towards Her Majesty the Queen or the Prince of Wales, or rather as manifestations of grave discontent in that part of the United Kingdom? He also wished to ask, whether any precautionary measures had been adopted by the authorities in those places to prevent the demonstrations; whether he thought the better classes in Dublin, Cork, and elsewhere, had taken any part in the organization of those demonstrations for the purposes imputed by the hon. Member for Peterborough; and, if so, in what manner? ["Order!"] Hon. Members, perhaps, thought his question too long. If they interfered any further with him, he was afraid he should be compelled to begin it again in order to preserve the whole thread of his inquiry. Well, he would ask 1935 further, whether the students of Trinity College, Dublin, had contributed in any way to the local riots of the 10th of March; whether there was such a place in Ireland as Bellina, so pointedly referred to by the hon. Gentleman; and, lastly, he desired to learn whether it was a fact known to the Government that the effigy of the Prince of Wales had been publicly burnt in Kinsale, Bellina, or Bellona, or any other places in Ireland?
§ SIR ROBERT PEELThis Question is rather a long one, but I most distinctly deny that there was any collusion in respect to the Question put to me to-night by the hon. Member for Peterborough. As regards the students of Trinity College, Dublin, to whom part of the hon. Member for Cork's Question refers, 1 believe they did not participate in any riot on the 10th inst. Like other young men, they made some joyous demonstrations on, I think, the 9th; but I have heard no report, and I do not believe it at all likely, that they made any riot on the 10th. As relates to Cork, I have seen the statement in the newspapers, and I have also the authority of a written report from the Mayor of that city, that an organized band of persons disturbed the peace there. Indeed, it is a matter of public notoriety. Their numbers were, however, very limited; and no one believes that that demonstration of a few seditious persons in any way represented the public feeling of the people of Ireland.
§ MR. WHITESIDEI wish to ask whether the Government have directed any investigation to be made into the conduct of any magistrate in any part of Ireland who may have failed to perform his duty, being at the time supplied with a military and police force to put down the rioters if rioters appeared? Again, has any deposition been sent to the Castle, stating the fact of this burning in effigy?
§ SIR ROBERT PEELYes, there was a report from a sub-inspector with reference to the alleged burning in effigy in Kilrush, and I have just seen a telegram stating that eight or ten persons have been summarily disposed of by being sent to prison.
MR. WHITE SIDEThe right hon. Baronet has not answered precisely the Question which I put to him. My Question was whether, systematic riots being said to have taken place, and the magistrates being provided with police and military, any inquiry has been ordered into the man- 1936 ner in which these magistrates performed their duty?
§ MR. SCULLYAnd whether any inquiry has been ordered into the conduct of the Mayor of Cork?
§ SIR ROBERT PEELI have not heard that there has been any neglect of duty on the part of any magistrate, the police, or the military.