On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if you would be good enough to clarify a Ruling you gave last Wednesday, when you said: The trial in another country of nationals of that country has nothing to do with us."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd November, 1948; Vol. 457, c. 855.] I ask because, as you will be aware, I attempted to put a private notice Question today about a number of Greek trade unionists who have now been sentenced to death and will probably be executed this week-end. I am well aware of the difference between Greece and, for example, Bulgaria, because of the Clause in the Treaty, but, with great respect, I think there is an analogy between Greece and Spain, about which questions have been allowed in the past year.

Actually what I have said is the basic Rule which covers all our Questions about trials in another country. I think the hon. Member understands the position as regards Bulgaria and Yugoslavia. He mentioned the question of Spain and I think I can clarify that. Questions were allowed about Spain because the Foreign Office themselves made a statement that they would answer questions about revolutionaries in Spain up to a certain period. That has now been cancelled and, therefore, no Questions about trials in Spain would pass the Table. I suggest to the hon. Member that I am governed by the basic Rule which I stated and I think the clarification comes not from me, but from a Government Department.

Further to that point of Order, it is surely not for any Government Department, the Foreign Office or any other, to say to the Table or the Chair which Questions are, or are not, to be allowed. Is it not entirely in the discretion of the Chair, and might a Minister not be obliged to answer a Question, on a precedent, even if he did not want to do so?

I cannot use my personal judgment in these matters, but must be governed by the basic Rule, and if I am satisfied that as far as the Foreign Office are concerned they have nothing to do with them, that is the basic Rule.

In considering the Rules which should be applied, would it not be proper for the Chair to have regard to the known and declared facts? For example, in Greece there are American and British troops. There are many missions which really govern the country. Even the draft legislation and the Bills which come before the Greek Parliament are settled by English-speaking people in bad Greek and the Greek Parliament are not even allowed to alter the text. I think it is generally known that if it were not for the troops of the European and American nations at present occupying Greece the Government would not last a week. The Government obey the orders of those countries. In those circumstances, does not this Government entertain not only a great moral responsibility, but a great political responsibility and ought they not to have to answer for the acts of the Greek Government?

I think political arguments might be adduced in Debate, but they cannot govern the Table.

Having regard to what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) has said, surely we in this House are committed to the expenditure of sums of money in support of our troops in Greece which would include, inter alia, the Military Mission which is supposed to educate the Greek people in the art of courts martial. Have we not a say in the way in which courts martial purport to administer justice? Further, are we so bereft of powers in this House that we must stand by in silence while good comrades, trade unionists, in Greece, for whom we have a moral and political responsibility, might be executed during the week-end—men who fought on our side in the Great War? It is disgraceful.

Does the hon. Member say that the conduct of the Chair is disgraceful?

No, I withdraw. I was referring to the political set-up in Greece.

We had better get on.