§ 52. Sir JAMES REMNANTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have been taken to protect the interests of English shareholders in the railways of Southern Ireland, in view of the fact that there is no representative of railway interests on the railway commission appointed by the Provisional Government of Southern Ireland?
§ Sir H. GREENWOODIn so far as the interests of English and Irish shareholders would appear to be identical, it is for the shareholders themselves, if they deem such a course to be necessary, to make representations to the Provisional Government, and His Majesty's Government would not feel justified in taking any action in the matter, in the absence of any differentiation against English shareholders as such.
§ Sir J. REMNANTIs the right hon. Gentleman aware of the names of the Commissioners of this Railway Commission? Are we to take it from his answers in this House that all forms of property, whatever they may be, belonging to subjects loyal to this country, are to be handed over to the Free State and dealt with as it chooses without any protest or steps being taken to protect it?
§ Sir H. GREENWOODNo; the hon. and gallant Gentleman must not take his statement as representing the views of the Government. When you hand over the administration of law and order, as has been done under the Free State Agreement Act, it is impossible for the Government further to interfere, just as it would be impossible to interfere on behalf of shareholders in Australian railways.
§ Sir J. REMNANTDoes that hold good even if law and order is not maintained?
§ Mr. SPEAKERWe cannot go back on the decision of Parliament.
§ Sir J. REMNANTWhere property is obviously being treated unfairly by the so-called Free State Government——
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat is just the point. In the month of March we passed an Act of Parliament transferring the responsibility to another body of Ministers, the Provisional Government.
§ Sir J. REMNANTMay I ask whether we have no redress whatever?
§ Mr. SPEAKERUnless the hon. Member introduces a Bill to repeal the Act we have already passed.
§ Sir J. BUTCHERMay I ask a question for the guidance of many of us who are deeply interested in this matter, and that is if this were happening in a foreign country would we not be entitled to ask His Majesty's Government to make representations to stop outrages on British subjects and their property?
§ Mr. SPEAKERWe are going beyond that. I have allowed questions to be put on the Paper which went as far as making representations. That is all that can be done in present circumstances.
§ Mr. R. McNEILLAs you have just said, Sir, that my hon. Friend may introduce a Bill for the repeal of this legislation, would it not be in order to put questions to Ministers which would serve as a justification for that Bill?
Mr. J. JONESWhen a question appeared on the Paper regarding the conduct of the South African Government in the case of the recent trade dispute, were we not told we had no right to interfere because South Africa was an independent country?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member has put his finger on the spot. It would be quite impossible for the floor of this House to be used, either in the case of South Africa or any other Dominion, for continually arraigning Ministers here for incidents which have happened there.