HC Deb 09 February 1922 vol 150 cc307-9

I desire to ask a question relating to Order, of which I have given private notice, namely, whether either or both of the Amendments standing in the names of the hon. and gallant Member for Bath (Captain Foxcroft) and the hon. Member for the Kensington Division (Sir W. Davison) relating to Ireland, are in order, and, if so, whether they will be taken?

The Amendments referred to are as follow: But regret that no reference is made to the present state of chaos in Southern Ireland, in which Your Majesty's loyal subjects are being subjected to tyranny and persecution without any protection by forces of the Law, and deplores the precipitant action of the Government in withdrawing the troops and police from Ireland before the Irish Free State is in a position to preserve the peace."—[Captain Foxcroft.] But regret that Your Majesty's Government has taken no steps to allay the fears of Your Majesty's loyal subjects in Ulster, that portions of territory placed under the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Northern Ireland by the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, may be handed over to the Government of Southern Ireland without the consent of the Northern Parliament."—[Sir W. Davison.]


The hon. and gallant Member asks me two quite separate questions as to separate Amendments standing on the Order Paper, firstly, whether they are in order, and, secondly, whether they will be taken. As to the matter of order, the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Kensington is covered by the notice of a Bill which was given yesterday, and which is to be presented to-day. That does not apply to the other Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Bath. That, I think, is not covered by any anticipatory notice before the House. As to the question whether that latter Amendment can be discussed or not, I am afraid that depends on whether the hon. and gallant Member manages to catch my eye before the Debate has been concluded.


Is it not a fact that the Bill introduced yesterday was introduced with the specific purpose of stifling a Debate on a most important matter at the present time?


I think it is the usual practice for His Majesty's Ministers to give notice of Bills on the first day of the Session.


May I add that the Prime Minister had given notice that he intended to introduce this Bill at once, before I knew that it would block discussion on this Motion?


is it not the fact that the Prime Minister stated that no question of boundaries Would arise for three or four months, and is it not clear it could have no other purpose but to block the Motion?