HC Deb 08 May 1922 vol 153 cc1791-2
52. Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the political situation now existing in Mexico; whether Article 27 of the Mexican Constitution, 1917, has yet become law; whether the Government of the United States of America has recently addressed representations to the Government of Mexico upon this article; and whether, in view of the large investments of British capital in Mexico, and the fact that the chief railway is British controlled, and having regard also to the potentialities of Mexico as a market for British goods, he will state what the attitude of the Government is with regard to the Constitution of 1917?


The situation in Mexico remains much as it has been for some time past, the Government of General Obregon continuing in power. Article 27 of the Constitution remains in force, but the proposed law to interpret the provisions of the Article has, I understand, not yet been passed by the Mexican Congress. Negotiations have been proceeding between the United States and Mexican Governments, but I have no official information as to the exact points covered by these negotiations. The attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the Constitution of 1917 is that the Mexican Government are not justified in interpreting it in such a way as to deprive British subjects of rights lawfully acquired by them in accordance with the laws previously in force in Mexico.


Can the Noble Lord give the House any information as to whether this particular General represents Standard oil or Shell oil?




The hon. Member should not make insinuations like that.


Is it in order for an hon. Gentleman to suggest that the head of a foreign Government is in the pay of a particular company, and ought he not to be called upon to withdraw the remark?


I at once intervened. It is wholly irregular and grossly improper that insinuations of any kind should be made in supplementary questions. Too many Members attempt things of that kind. But I thought the obvious disapproval of the House and of the Chair a more effective method than that suggested by the hon. Member.

Forward to