§ Commander Locker-Lampson
On a point of Order. There has appeared on the Order Paper a Motion in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Peebles and Southern (Captain Ramsay).
§ [That this House realises that the protection afforded to His Majesty's liege subjects from arrest and punishment without trial and from Jewish extortion and exploitation by the provisions of Magna Carta signed at Runnymede in 1215, confirmed and elaborated by the Statute of Jewry passed in 1290 under Edward I, rightly acknowledged as one of the greatest law-givers of this realm, was mistakenly and harmfully impaired by the repeal of the Statute of Jewry in 1846, in the ninth year of Queen Victoria's reign; that the repeal of this Act released the very evils which Magna Carta and the Statute of Jewry recognised and against which they were specifically directed; that these evils have from that moment reappeared in ever-growing proportions; that they have now become a grievous menace to His Majesty's liege subjects throughout the realm and are in turn evoking a rising tide of public feeling against the Jewish nation; that the Statute of Jewry provided for protection from all violence for all Jews who obeyed its provisions; and this House therefore calls upon His Majesty's Government to re-introduce the Statute of Jewry and enforce its provisions.]
§ Am I entitled to ask whether that Motion is not a breach of Privilege; whether it might not also lead to every sort of serious legal consequence, and how did it get on to the Order Paper?
§ Mr. Speaker
The Motion in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Peebles and Southern (Captain Ramsay) was carefully examined before it was put on the Order Paper, and is in Order, but whether one agrees with the views expressed or not is entirely another matter. My only duty is to see that the Motion is in Order, and if so, as protector of minority opinions, I am bound to accept it.