§ Mr. DILLONI want to put a question with reference to the conduct of the Debate this evening. The Government have put down a Notice of Motion, which takes precedence, which opens up a subject of the widest possible discussion, and they challenge no issue. What I wish to ask is whether, in the interests of the conduct of the discussion, it would not be better to arrive at some understanding with the general assent of the House that no Amendments should be moved, because it is manifest, if any Amendment is moved, it will so narrow the discussion as soon as it is put from the Chair as to waste the evening and spoil the discussion?
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYWould it be in order on this Motion to discuss the affairs of Ireland?
§ Mr. LOUGHWith regard to the Amendment standing in my name, I wish to ask the Prime Minister, seeing that the Amendment was put down owing to a suggestion the right hon. Gentleman 41 threw out on Wednesday last, whether he would like the discussion on this subject to take place to-day, or will the right hon. Gentleman give us another day as he partially promised?
§ Sir W. BYLESHaving regard to the necessary and proper absorption of time in to-day's Debate by the Front Bench speakers, will the Prime Minister allow the Debate to be adjourned to some early day in order that independent Members may have a rare opportunity of expressing their views on foreign affairs?
§ Mr. SPEAKERIn reply to the question put to me by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) I should deprecate very much any Amendments being moved for the reason stated by the hon. Member, namely, that the Debate would at once be confined to the subject matter of the Amendment. I think on this occasion it is desirable to keep the question as wide as possible, and then hon. Members can raise any question they like with regard to foreign affairs without committing themselves to an Amendment and without asking the House to devote its time to the discussion of one particular subject when hon. Members are anxious to discuss several. I am afraid I cannot say more than that.
§ Mr. KEIR HARDIEWill the usual practice be followed of discussing one subject at a time so as to prevent a hotchpotch Debate?
§ Mr. SPEAKERHon. Members will, of course, only have one opportunity of addressing the House, and it rests with them whether they will single out a particular topic or combine two or three subjects. That does not rest with me in any way.
§ The PRIME MINISTERI have been asked two questions. With regard to the question put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Sir W. Byles) we must, of course, see how the Debate progresses before we come to any decision on that point. With regard to the point raised by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Lough), after what you, Mr. Speaker, have said, I think my right hon. Friend will probably agree that it would be un desirable to limit the scope of the Debate by moving his Amendment. The Leader of the Opposition the other night rather intimated a desire that special time should be given for the discussion of this particular topic. If he is still of the same mind——
§ Mr. BONAR LAWAt the time I made the remark referred to I had not seen the Paper which has since been laid on the Table of the House. As far as I can judge now no very useful purpose can be served by discussing it until we see what the Convention does. Therefore, I do not press my request.
§ Mr. DAVID MASONWith reference to the Amendment standing in my name dealing with the seizure of Tripoli by the Italians, could that not be disposed of by a Division, and then the resumption of the Debate might take place?
§ Mr. SPEAKEREvery other hon. Member who has an Amendment down might take up a similar position.
§ Mr. LOUGHArising out of the announcement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, may I ask my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, whether he will now revert to the partial promise he made for finding time, in deference to a widespread opinion in various parts of the House, to discuss this question?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI do not understand what "a partial promise" is. I responded to what I thought was the appeal of the Leader of the Opposition for adequate time for the discussion of this subject, but now, for reasons which I appreciate, he does not press that request, and I shall be guided in my judgment by the extent of the demand which the right hon. Gentleman says exists.