§ 51. Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he will consider the advisability of proposing to submit the dispute between this country and the Irish Free State with regard to the Anglo-Irish Treaty for final decision by either a specially constituted Imperial court of appeal or the Permanent Court of International Justice?
The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas)As I have already made clear to the House, Mr. de Valera has deliberately chosen to propose the abolition of the Parliamentary Oath from the Irish Free State Constitution by unilateral action.
§ Mr. MANDERWill not the Government be prepared to submit this question—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SPEAKERI think we had better get on with questions.
§ Mr. LANSBURYOn a point of Order. When a Member desires to ask a question, and no one in the House knows what the question is—the hon. Member has not had an opportunity of putting it —is it in order that he should be shouted down?
§ Mr. SPEAKERAn hon. Member is entitled to put a supplementary question, but, if other hon. Members take exception to it, I cannot prevent it.
§ Mr. McGOVERNYou stopped it with me all right.
§ Mr. LANSBURYI think it is the custom in this House to allow a Member to put a question, and I respectfully submit to you that, if the House is in a state of disorder, you can, under the Rules, adjourn the House.
§ Mr. BUCHANANYou, Mr. Speaker, have stated that the question was not ruled out of order, but that you could not see how you could stop the interjections that were taking place. Am I to understand from your Ruling that, when one or two Members make interjections, they are to suffer and be suspended, but that, if a large number make thorn, they are to be preferentially treated and no action is to be taken against them?
§ Mr. BALDWINIf you think fit, Mr. Speaker, to allow the supplementary question to be put, my right hon. Friend will be perfectly willing to answer it.
§ Mr. BUCHANANAre we to get orders from you, Mr. Speaker, or from the Lord President of the Council? I want to ask you whether the intervention of the Lord President of the Council is in order on this point, seeing that his intervention is not on a point of Order or arising from the question that was originally put? Are we to be governed by you, or by the Lord President of the Council? It is you who should give us orders, and not the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI really do not know what all the excitement is about. I did not rule the question out of order. If the hon. Member puts it now, he can have an answer.
§ Mr. MANDERThe supplementary question that I desire to put is: Would not the Government be prepared to submit the matter in dispute to the appropriate judicial tribunal, whatever it may be?
§ Mr. MANDERI want an answer from the Minister, not from hon. Members.
Mr. THOMASThe hon. Member is entitled to have an answer from me to his question. The matter in dispute is a treaty agreement between two parties. It is customary, when there is a difference of opinion, for one or the other to ask for consultation to discuss any differences. In this particular case, Mr. de Valera, without consultation or intimation of any kind, has proposed to break his side of the Treaty. It is not for us, as a Government, being the other party to the Treaty, to do other than draw attention to the fact that he has broken the Treaty, and, if the hon. Member were speaking for Mr. de Valera—
§ Mr. MANDERI am not.
§ Mr. MAXTONIs it the policy of His Majesty's Government, on the Irish question, merely to allow matters to drift on to a crisis?
Mr. THOMASOn the contrary, His Majesty's Government indicated at the outset that nothing would have suited them or pleased them more than to allow the 10 years' peace that has developed in Ireland, as a result of the Treaty, to continue. The responsibility for the breaking of that peace must rest with those who are responsible.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODArising from the reply that Mr. de Valera has broken a contract, is it not the case that, when that contract was made, the Irish felt themselves to be a subject race, and that they now feel they are a free people and are asserting their rights as a free people?