I beg to move,

"That during the remainder of the Session:

(1) No Motions shall be made for leave to bring in Bills;

(2) At the conclusion of Government Business, or of Proceedings made in pursuance of any Act of Parliament requiring any Order, Rule, or Regulation to be laid before the House of Commons, which shall be taken immediately after Government Business, Mr. Speaker shall propose the Question, That this House do now adjourn, and, if that Question shall not have been agreed to, Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House without Question put, not later than one hour after the conclusion of Government Business, if that Business has been concluded before 10.30 p.m., but, if that business has not been so concluded, not later than 11.30 p.m;

(3) If the day be a Friday the House, unless it otherwise resolves, shall at its rising stand adjourned until the following Monday."

After all the permutations of the last weeks it is not altogether easy for the House to realise the position in which it finds itself. There is a feeling among us that we are entering upon a new Session, whereas, as a matter of fact, we are at the end of a Session already not far from 12 months old. It. will be within the memory of every Member of the House, and particularly of the occupants of the Front Bench opposite, that in the latter part of a Session, that is to say, in the autumn if it be the prolongation of a Session begun at an earlier date, and not the beginning of a new Session, the adoption of such a Motion as that I am moving—or a Motion embodying the major part of what I am moving—has been the universal practice of the House for some years past. Motions with regard to private Members' time have been moved regularly from the Government Bench. It used to be done to clear up a certain ambiguity with regard to part of that time which was made clear by an alteration of the Standing Orders made within the last three or four years. I want to point out, with regard to the second and third paragraphs of this Motion, on which I will say a word first, that the private Member has no grievance, in that he has already had during the Session the full allotment of time awarded to him under Standing Orders. What this Motion does is to say that if Government business comes to an end at a comparatively early period of the day, then the House shall be adjourned within an hour of that time, leaving an hour for such discussion as Members may desire, rather than having, what to the majority of the House has always been rather of an infliction, the possibility of the House running on for several hours until the normal time comes for adjourning. Should the business of the House finish at the usual time of 11 o'clock, then the ultimate hour for the adjournment is confirmed, according to our usual practice, at half-past 11.

I may just remind the House, in case they are looking for precedents for taking up private Members' time as dealt with under the first part of the Motion, which deals with the introduction of Bills under the Ten Minutes Rule, that the last time that Parliament met for one specific purpose, and one only, was to deal with the crisis on the Irish question in 1922. At that time the whole of the private Members time and such privileges as existed were taken away for Government business. At this period of the Session Parliament, having been convened for one purpose primarily, and one purpose only, we have thought fit to follow that precedent in order that the Government may enjoy all the time there is—[HON. MEMBERS: "Enjoy!"]—I hope so—that they may get through all their business with the utmost despatch—which I am sure, whether we say it or not, is the desire of the whole House, for certain obvious reasons. I may add, with special reference to the third paragraph, because this may not be familiar to every Member, that when the Committee of Supply and the Committee of Ways and Means are open, Standing Order 24 provides that the House at its rising on Fridays stands adjourned until the following Monday but during the period when these Committees are not open a resolution of the House is required to postpone the sitting of the House from Friday to Monday. I think it is for the general convenience of the House that that should be embodied in the Motion which I move.

Paragraph (1) of the Motion is the only one, I think, on which a private Member may reasonably feel that he is aggrieved. It provides that no Motion shall be made for leave to bring in a Bill. That refers to Bills under the Ten Minutes Rule. It does not prevent a private Member presenting a Bill in the ordinary way and having it printed, nor does it deprive him of the power to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10, the one dealing with questions of urgent public importance, nor, of course, does it interfere in any way with whatever a private Member may think fit to say upon the ordinary occasions of adjournment. Private Members have always valued the privilege of bringing in a Bill under the Ten Minutes Rule, not that such Bills ever get very much farther, but they give the Member a very good advertisement in his constituency—and there are times when we all of us feel the need of that. It also enables a Member, particularly if he be supporting a subject not of general popularity, to get it free and public circulation. All that is to the good, and the opportunities for it have existed through the year; and it is only in the exceptional circumstances which have called the House to meet at this time that we have thought it right to follow the precedent set in not dissimilar circumstances in 1922, and to take for these few weeks that privilege from the private Member. I think that with these few words of explanation, hon. Members are possessed of the simple facts with regard to this Motion, and it is for them to discuss it and come to a conclusion upon it.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin) has moved this Motion very briefly upon the assumption that it, involves merely questions of procedure and the taking of the time of private Members and nothing more. This question cannot be disposed of so quickly as that, and it has never been so disposed of when previous Governments have put a similar Motion before the House. The right hon. Gentleman made a remark at the beginning of his explanation which did not appear to me to be quite accurate when he said that private Members had already had their allotment of time, and therefore they had no grievance under this Motion. It is true that private Members have had their fair allotment of time so far as private Members' days and evenings for Motions are concerned, but the Motion does not deal with that question at all. In the ordinary way the private Member was left with a certain amount of time for the remainder of this Session, and now the Motion takes away all the time which he had left. I gather that this Motion prevents the private Member from introducing Bills under the Ten Minutes Rule. The right hon. Gentleman says that it does not hamper the private Member in merely presenting Bills for their First Reading and having them read out by the Clerk at the Table, but even there I think the Motion comes in. It has been put down only this morning, but I gather that the private Member will not have the right to have his Bill read out for the Second Reading at all. Last Session a private Member belonging to the Labour party succeeded in getting an important Bill carried with the consent of the House.

It frequently happens that the House rises fairly early after the Government business is concluded about seven or eight o'clock. In those circumstances, the private Member, on the Motion for the Adjournment, has several hours in which to discuss any question which he wishes to bring forward. That right is taken away by this Motion. I have no objection to the third paragraph with regard to Fridays, which is obviously merely technical. Paragraphs 1 and 2 are identical with the Resolutions which were put before this House in 1925, 1926, and 1927, and in each of 'those years they were resisted by the Labour party.

Not this year.

They were resisted, and the opening speech was made by the Leader of the Labour party, whose leadership I am very pleased to follow. On these Motions to take away the time of private Members, it has been the habit of Government spokesmen to make a statement regarding the business which the Government propose to lay before the House and then to allow the house to decide whether it is willing to allow time for that business to be carried through. The right hon. Gentleman has made no such statement. There are certain very important questions which one can raise now and to which I should like to have a reply. The right hon. Gentleman said this Motion was proposed because the Government wished to get through the business rapidly for obvious reasons. I remember the last time that the right hon. Gentleman spoke from that Box he was the Leader of the Conservative party, and he made a reference to this point.

He is not a prisoner, like Henderson.

I remember the right hon. Gentleman saying, on that occasion, that he wished the House to get through the business rapidly in order that we might have a general election, and I should like to have some information about that. Last night the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) advocated and urged an early general election and that statement met with the approval of many hon. Members sitting around the right hon. Gentleman. Why did the right hon. Gentleman urge that? He said he did so simply because the longer this Government lived the more discredited and unpopular they would become—

He is not in it.

There are no women in it.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping said that the longer this Government lived the more unpopular they would become, and therefore he thought it was essential to have a general election before the democracy had been able fully to realise all the implications and consequences of the policy which the Government are adopting. [Interruption.]

I need hardly say that the House is quite capable of judging what a complete misrepresentation that is.

I will give the right hon. Gentleman's words:

"A vast unorganised electorate will have new discontents and new disappointments, and they will assign to the Conservative party, which, after all, is the main and dominant force in this Government, an increasing measure of the weight and burden of affairs. In six months' time it will not be the Socialist Government that will be in the dock, but the Government of the day."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th September, 1931; col. 45, Vol. 256.]

But I noticed that, although the right hon. Gentleman said this about the electorate in one part of his speech, that did not deter him from saying, in his peroration, that he was willing—

I do not see what this has to do with the Motion.

I beg to point out that, on the last occasion when a similar Motion was discussed, a General Election was a possibility, and the question of the motives for a General Election was, I assure you, Sir, very fully debated on that occasion. I will not follow the right hon. Gentleman, but I think I should be in order and within precedent if I just discussed the question as to whether the shortening of the time allowed for Debate in this House was or was not preparatory to a General Election.

If the right hon. Gentleman can show reasons why the time of the House should not be taken up, he will be entirely in order, but I do not see what this has to do with that question.

I will explain. I wish that the time of the House should not be fully occupied by the Government in order that private Members might themselves have opportunities of putting before the country through this House their views upon this Government, and that, I think, would be in order. The view which I think many private Members wish to express is that one of the reasons why it is essential to have an early General Election is that this is a Coalition Government, or, if you wish it, a Conservative Government carrying a few Liberals and Labour Members in its train. But there is one thing that is certain, if an election is delayed, and if this Government lasts any length of time. Coalition Governments always begin amid the general approval of the Press, and in a few months, if they are allowed to last, they end in universal disgust. [Interruption.]

Like Socialism.

Coalition Governments are like the Marriage Service of the Church of England. It begins, I have noticed, with the word "Beloved," and ends with the word "amazement." May I go on to another reason why I think it is inadvisable that private Members should be robbed of their time? I see sitting there the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown). I cannot believe that this Debate can proceed without his taking part in it, and I am sure that, when he does take part in it, he will speak for private Members, and that he will speak for the private Members of the Liberal party—those who are not in the Government. I think it is very important, not only that the Labour Members of the House should have full time to develop their views, but it is most essential, in order that the country should understand the situation, that Liberal Members should have the opportunity of explaining where they stand. [Interruption.] The reason why I think it is essential that the Liberal private Members should take part in these Debates is this: I noticed yesterday that speaker after speaker assailed the late Labour Government on account of its expenditure, but the simple fact is that one of the embarrassments of the late Labour Government was that, whatever expenditure they proposed, they were always hounded on to further expenditure by the Liberal party. Every Department suffered from this nuisance. If I may give my own experience at the Post Office, I was continually being badgered to spend another£15,000,000 a year on telephone development—

May I ask if this is in order?

I am sure that the how and gallant Member has not followed previous Debates on these Motions for taking private Members' time, the discussions on which have always ranged over a very wide area, and have included exactly the type of subject that I am discussing, especially when a general election was in sight. [Interruption.] I will only say that, if I had followed their advice, I should have been committed to wanton and wasteful and profligate expenditure, and that, to the deficit on the Unemployment Insurance Fund, there would have been added a deficit, on telephone account. I need only go back a few months. What was laid before us by the Liberal party was expenditure for every Government Department, and, in order to meet it, there was to be a vast national loan of £250,000,000.

We cannot go into that matter on this Motion. It only deals with the question of taking private Members' time.

May I come to this. It is usual to ask on these occasions what the Government business is going to be. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley has, in fact, omitted what has been a very normal feature of a speech at this time of the Session taking away private Member's time. It has been customary to make some general statement as to what were the main items of Government business and what the course of it was to be. I do not wish to ask about the whole of it, but I think I am in order in asking about one portion of it which was brought to my mind by certain observations made yesterday by the Prime Minister. He said the Government would not resign until the currency was on a stable foundation, and he went on to indicate that that stability would not be secured merely by balancing the Budget. He used phrases about the banking system which indicated that he, at any rate, had views and thoughts and possibilities in his mind upon that sphere of action which have certainly not been expressed by any of his Conservative colleagues. I should like to ask whether the Government, if they take private Members' time, have any intention of dealing with this aspect of the subject? I would not go into any discussion of financial conspiracies and so on. That is not part of my argument. The Prime Minister indicated that he realised that, undoubtedly, one of the causes of the crisis that has come upon the country is that the banking system has developed certain excesses and extravagancies which have made it so delicate that, quite apart from anything in this country, circumstances arising in Germany can lead us to a crisis such as confronted us three weeks ago. Unless the Prime Minister deals with that, he does not put the currency of the country on a stable foundation, because of these possibilities in the banking system.

The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to ask the Prime Minister what the business is going to he, but he really cannot go into the merits of various Bills.

I would, then, ask the Government whether they intend to deal with this particular cause of the crisis through which we have passed. My impression, from what has been stated up to the present, is that they have no such intention at all. That being so, I think the country will be grateful that there is in existence a party which will give its attention to these things and which will be an alternative to a Government mainly dominated by the Conservative party.

Those who have followed Debates on the procedure of the House and have taken the trouble to follow the evidence given before the Select Committee on Procedure will not be surprised that the Chief Whip of the Labour party did not speak in favour of this Motion or choose one of his late Cabinet Ministers, because it is well known that the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken is a friend of the private Member. He spent a lot of time in his own party and also helped private Members in other parties with his great knowledge of the procedure of the House, but, if he will read the evidence given before the Committee, he will find that his Whip, and the Prime Minister also, do not share his views about private Members' time. The Prime Minister is logical. He is only carrying out his evidence. But the hon. Gentleman is not. The Prime Minister and the hon. Gentleman in their evidence regard the House as a legislative sausage machine to turn out the decrees of the Government. I am, therefore, not very surprised that the Chief Whip of the late Government himself did not speak to this Motion or choose one of his ex-Cabinet Ministers who were so very keen to dragoon private Members on the Finance Bill of 1930. There are private Members in the House who do not need right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench to express their views. They are quite capable of expressing them for themselves.

The right hon. Gentleman, of course, is an illustration of a recent article by the late President of the Board of Trade, a cynical and an artless article, in which he points out that the trained thinkers and economists in the party are a very small minority and that the thing that moves the party is simply mass motives. The right hon. Gentleman makes a high- brow speech here and says lie does not believe in conspiracies. The highbrow speech will have very little sale, but the highly-coloured shocker about a conspiracy will have a very wide and popular sale indeed. This Motion is on the Table of the House for one reason. The House is not called normally. It is called for one purpose only. It is not here normally, because the situation is abnormal for two reasons. A crisis having arisen, one body of right hon. Gentlemen faced the crisis and the other body ran away. Speaking as a private Member, I say that there are many private Members in the House who realise the emergency, many who are here as Members, not as delegates, to speak their own minds and not the minds of some little caucus in a back room outside. They understand that this is an emergency and, therefore, their duty is a very simple one, to sit tight, to keep quiet, and to vote straight.

We have just heard a very interesting statement from the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) on the importance of being in earnest. I do not intend to follow him, but I want to get, if possible, some information from the Government with regard to this Motion, if it is carried. I notice that the second paragraph says:

"That during the remainder of the Session:

Proceedings made in pursuance of any Act of Parliament requiring any Order, Rule, or Regulation to be laid before the House of Commons, which shall be taken immediately after Government business,"

and so on.

I wish to ask whether, if one of those regulations has been laid and a private Member wishes to put down a Prayer that the regulation shall not be carried into effect, the private Member will be allowed to move his Prayer.

indicated assent.

I am very glad to get that assurance from the Lord President of the Council, because it is a matter of very great importance. We have met here under what has been described as a great emergency, and during the Debate yesterday I felt that it would only have been fair to the Members of the House if one of the representatives of the Government had taken the oppor- tunity of giving the House some indication of the period of time during which we are likely to be engaged in connection with the emergency measures. I wish to ask the former Leader of the Conservative party—I forget his title in this Government—the Lord President of the Council—

The Leader of the Conservative party.

I would say to the, hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall) that I was trying to be accurate, and, whether he likes it or not, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. R. MacDonald) is the Leader of the Conservative party. It may make the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich uneasy, but it leaves us very happy on this side of the House. [Interruption.] I am very happy. I wish to ask the Lord President of the Council this question. Is it not possible for the Government to give some indication of the time to be taken for the Second Reading of the Economy Bill and of the number of days they are contemplating for the Committee stage of the Bill? I should also like similar information with regard to the supplementary Budget. T should like them, if they are able, to give us some idea of what is in the mind of the Government as to the time to be taken in regard to those two Measures. This is also a very suitable occasion upon which the representative of the Government could tell us what is intended with regard to other legislation which is contemplated besides those two Measures. What of the other Bills which have been carried through in this Session of Parliament? Is it not possible for the Government to give us some idea with regard to those Measures?

The Government are proposing to take away private Members' time. During this Session I introduced a Bill under the Ten Minutes Rule in order to secure a reduction of rents of houses in the country, and the Bill has had a Second Reading and is at the Committee stage. I should like the Lord President of the Council to tell me whether there is any possibility, seeing that this Motion is going to take private Members' time, of the Government giving facilities for the remaining; stages of that Bill? The Prime Minister has been very insistent that the unemployed in this country should not worry so very much about a 10 per cent. reduction, because there has been a 11½ per cent. reduction in the cost of commodities. I am taking advantage of the occasion of this Motion to point out that the people who draw rents for those houses are also enjoying the advantage of the lower price of commodities. If there is to be equality of sacrifice in connection with the present emergency, I hope that I shall be able to get facilities from the Government for the passage of this Measure, which will call for some sacrifice from the property owners with regard to rents. If the Government give those facilities, and there is a corresponding reduction in rents, it will make the cut which the unemployed are being called upon to suffer less onerous. I hope the Lord President of the Council will give us an assurance that there will be a cut in rents so that the sacrifice is not placed wholly upon the shoulders of the unemployed and the people in receipt of the poor wages which are current at the present time.

The questions which I have put to the Lord President of the Council, Members on all sides of the House will agree, are very reasonable. I think that Members on all sides are anxious to know as soon as possible what is in the mind of the Government with regard to the period of time we are going to be engaged upon legislation during the remainder of this Session. I do not suggest that we should be given a definite statement of the exact number of days on the Committee stage and all the rest of it, but surely we should be given some general indication of what the Government have in mind as to the time. I am surprised that this information has not been given, and I hope that the House will now be given the information. If the Government are going to give a reasonable time for the Economy Bill and for the supplementary Budget—[An HON. MEMBER: "Do not repeat yourself."] If the hon. Member who interrupted will listen, he will find that I am not repeating myself. There is a Standing Order of the House with regard to repetition, and there is also Mr. Speaker, who knows the Rules better than the silly interrupter. If a reasonable amount of time is to be given with regard to the discussion of those other matters, there may be a valid case for taking private Members' time, but if the Government are not going to give a reasonable amount of time for the discussion of those Measures, naturally, private Members will feel aggrieved at losing the few opportunities that they enjoy in this House. I am rather surprised that the Government have thought it necessary to take the few minutes occupied by private Members in introducing Bills under the Ten Minutes Rule. It is such a comparatively short period of time that I am a little surprised that the Government have thought it worth while to try and steal it from the private Members. A Government which will be known in history as the starvation Government could not be expected to treat the private Members in this House with any consideration. I hope that we shall get information from the Lord President of the Council.

When the right hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) was speaking, I thought at first that perhaps he was succumbing to the natural temptation to work off a speech which he would have liked to deliver yesterday, but afterwards I came to the conclusion that perhaps he was speaking the mind of the Opposition when he was endeavouring to prevent the business for which this Parliament has been called together being carried out with the celerity which we on this side wish to see. The only meaning of the opposition raised by the right hon. Gentleman can be that he wishes to see the present Session and the life of this Parliament prolonged. In my opinion, that is a thing that we on this side of the House and the House as a whole do not wish to see. If there is one thing that has emerged both from the atmosphere of the House yesterday and from the nature and temper of the Opposition, it is the extreme impermanence of the Parliament which is assembled at the present time. It has no stability. The present Government is a breakdown gang.

The hon. and learned Member is inviting discussion far beyond the range of the Motion before the House.

I have no desire to enlarge the discussion beyond the limits which you think proper, Mr. Speaker, but, in my submission, I am justified in saying that this Government exists for the purpose of clearing up the mess that has been left to it by the last Government. It has been called into being for that purpose and that purpose only and so soon as it has devised the emergency Measures dealing with the acute crisis its function is ceasing and it ought to make way for another government. [Interruption.] I do not believe that we do any service to the country. [Interruption.] History will tell who has done the greatest disservice. I do not believe that one does any service to the country by maintaining the pretence that this Government can deal with the fundamentals of the situation. [HON. MEMBRES: "Hear, hear!'] I am glad to hear that there is widespread agreement with that sentiment. The fundamentals of the situation are our trade and industrial conditions.

This is another speech that ought to have been delivered yesterday.

I will try to resist that very natural tendency, but may I insist that I am perfectly in order in saying that the House as a whole ought to assent to any form of precedure which will shorten the present Session and shorten the present Parliament? The House ought not to labour under the delusion that by sitting in Session when it has been called together for one specific purposes, it is going to do anything more than postpone the crisis which has to be faced some time or other, but not by this Government. For those reasons, any Measure which limits the duration of the present Session ought to command the assent of the House of Commons. The main duty of this Government is bound to be an administrative duty. It has to make democracy safe for the General Election.

The hon. and learned Member must not widen the scope of the Debate. I shall have to call him to order very seriously if he does.

I trust that hon. Members on the opposite side of the House, who by their profuse cheering seem to agree with my sentiments, including the last one that I expressed, will be at least logical in supporting the Government in this Motion, by which the Gov- ernment are endeavouring to curtail this Session and curtail the life of this Parliament. Any other course that they may take, such opposing the present Motion, must be construed as showing their desire to postpone the issue on which we are going to meet them at the polls.

I do not wish to follow the last hon. and learned Member in his argument, but I would endorse the appeal that has been made by the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) for facilities for Bills which have already gone a considerable distance towards the Statute Book. There are several Bills on the Order Paper, and if some of those Bills were allowed to go to Committees I am certain that they would not take up any considerable amount of time and that they would come back to the House in such a form that they would require little or no time for the Report stage and Third Reading, thereby allowing them to pass into law speedily. There is, for example, the Bill which stands last on the Order Paper for to-day, sponsored by myself, which I am certain could be considered in Committee and so moulded into shape that it would come before the House I believe as an agreed Measure. It is, of course, a private Member's Bill, hut I believe that it could come back from Committee in a form which would win for it general approval, and it would take up very little time in the House. I refer to the Wild Birds Protection (Scotland) Bill.

It is perhaps natural that I should make a plea for a Bill which may be said to be my own child, but I want to raise another question of more general importance, and to make a very specific inquiry of the Lord President of the Council with regard to it. For many weary days I sat and listened to the now silent Members of the Conservative party exercising all their ingenuity to prevent the Consumers' Council Bill getting through the Committee stage. That Bill got through Committee, although it was somewhat mutilated by having one Clause struck out entirely. There is, I believe, a great need in the present circumstances for this Bill to be brought before the House, amended in essential particulars, with the reinsertion of the Clause which was struck out, and passed into law. This new Government, we are told, has been brought into being in order that there might be a tightening of belts. I want to put forward the consideration that if our people, if our housewives, are to have less money with which to run the family exchequer—

I do not see what this has to do with the Motion now before the House.

My point is, that if the Government propose to take private Members' time, I want to know the facilities which will be given to legislation other than that already foreshadowed by the Government.

The Motion deals chiefly with private Members' time.

I am asking how the Government are going to use the time they are demanding from private Members, what actually will come within the scope of their activities during this part of the Session, and, in view of the fact that the Government are setting out on a so-called economy campaign, it is desirable that the Consumers' Council Bill should be passed into law so that the people who are to he brought down to lower wages and lower salaries, who are suffering all the cuts, may have the assurance that they are being protected against profiteering. That is a consideration which should be brought forward at this time, and I desire to ask the Lord President of the Council what the Government propose to do in regard to the general question of private Members' Bills and these two Measures in particular.

In a time of crisis like this I am profoundly shocked that the Lord President of the Council should bring forward a Motion of this description. We have been told that we are passing through one of the greatest economic crises which this country has ever seen, it is a crisis which has destroyed a Labour Government on which so many hopes were fixed, and has given us again one of those Coalitions which England does not like. We were told yesterday that just as in 1914, when, as the result of a shot in the Balkans, nation after nation was drawn into the Great War so, because of the failure of banks in Vienna, various nations—

I can see that the hon. Member agrees that what he is now saying has not anything to do with the Resolution.

My point is this. I will not elaborate it. We are all agreed that we are in a great crisis, but although the world survived the shock of 12,000,000 people being killed—

Really this has nothing to do with the Motion before the House.

The point I am trying to make is not concerned with that part of the Motion to take away private Members' time. That does not shock me in the least. The point which shocks me is that in a crisis like this we are proposing to rise on Friday and not to sit again until Monday. Personally, I am not shocked that private Members' time should be taken away, I think it is usually useless, but here is a crisis which is going on and getting deeper day by day. We are told by people who know something about our financial position that it is a crisis which is deepening steadily. Owing to the operation of the moneylenders and bankers and the deflation which has been going on for the last 10 years, the burden of debt on the nations has been increasing every day, industry is being strangled, and more and more people thrown out of work.

That is the crisis. It is a grave crisis in our history, and if business men can go to their offices on Saturday and work even on Sundays in some cases, then this House, to whom the workers are looking for a lead, should be able to do the same. The men who are going to be deprived of their unemployment benefit and wages are looking to us to earn our salaries and give a lead in a crisis like this. Why should the Government insist on a long week-end in a time of crisis? I have looked at the names of the members of this Government. It is an aristocratic Government. It contains five marquesses; only one is a Member of this House, and he is the best of the bunch. I am sure that he is willing to sit here on Saturdays and Sundays rather than go hunting and shooting. I think the House would be well occupied on Saturdays and Sundays in dealing with the crisis which is before us. For the first time we have a Government which does not represent the people at all. We have merely the nominees of the moneylenders, the servants of Shylock. We have a Government which has surrendered to the gangsters of Wall Street. Never since Charles II's time—

This has certainly nothing to do with the Motion.

I will not weary your patience, Mr. Speaker, any longer. My point is, that if we had a Government with British characteristics they would not mind working during the week-end, but because it is a, Government of foreign nominees they propose to rise during the week-end and allow the bankers to work their wicked will.

I wish to say a few words on behalf of the ex-Service men who are very naturally concerned in two private Members' Bills which appear on the Order Paper to-day. I would like an assurance from the Lord President of the Council about the Employment of Disabled Ex-Service Men Bill, and the War Pensions (Amendment) Bill which is to abolish the seven years' limit. I may say that the second Bill is a Bill which is agreed to by members of all political parties, and as we have now what claims to be a National Government, surely it is a fine opportunity for that National Government to give facilities for the passing into law of a Bill about which, when any particular party has been in office, difficulties have always arisen to prevent its passage to the Statute Book. Now that we have what claims to be a National Government, surely it is not too much, on behalf of men who made a sacrifice from 1914 to 1918, to ask that they should be rewarded by the passage into law of this Bill. It would, I am sure, give some colour to the sincerity of a Government which claims to believe in equality of sacrifice, if they equalled up the sacrifice made in the War, and one of the ways to equal up that sacrifice is to give justice to ex-Service men. I represent the vast number of ex-Service men of Birmingham and the division I represent. They are all very anxious that they and their colleagues, who feel that they have suffered an injustice in the matter of pensions, should be given an opportunity of having those pensions reconsidered without difficulties being placed in the way. May I appeal, there- fore, to the Lord President of the Council to give us some assurance that this Bill will receive the consideration of the new Government, and will be starred as a Government Measure and placed on the Statute Book before this Parliament comes to an end?

The hon. Member for Erdington (Mr. Simmons) has urged a course that he has often urged with great eloquence, and there would be some force in his observations if, as I understand, the Bill in question had not been blocked for two years by the Labour Chief Whip when the Labour Government, were, in office, and had the opportunity, when no crisis existed, to pass it into law, and when the Labour Chief Whip blocked the Measure in a period of comparative calm.

May I inform the House that the statement now made by the hon. Member is not true?

I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman will deny that that Measure has been blocked from his bench.

I do not need to deny it. The Bill was blocked, but not by me.

Withdraw!

We all know how Chief Whips do these things. No Chief Whip himself has ever blocked Measure; his supporters do it by his instructions, and, in any case, if that Measure was not blocked by the Labour Government, why did not the Chief Whip provide time for its passage? Can anything be more absurd—to use no stronger word—than for the Labour party now to have to press in the present crisis for the passage of a Bill which, for two years, they themselves blocked? [Interruption.] On a point of Order. Is an hon. Member in order in referring to my statement as a lie?

I did not hear the remark that was made.

On a point of Order. The hon. Baronet has made the statement twice that a certain Bill has been before this House for two years. I think it is better that we should be accurate. The Bill was brought in, I think, a matter of nine months ago.

Three months.

The hon. Baronet will, I think, agree that, as most Members are interested in this Bill, and desire to see it passed, on whichever side of the House they are, he might at least withdraw the statement that the Labour Government have for two years blocked this particular Measure.

I do not withdraw that observation, because I understand that the Bill has been before the House for something of that period.

On a point of Order. The introducer of the Bill has himself stated that it is only three months since he brought the Bill into the House, and had it, accepted, and, therefore, the records of the House are against the hon. Baronet.

I will not withdraw the observation that the Bill has been blocked for a very long time in this House from the Labour benches, and certainly I will not withdraw any observation I made in the face of hon. Members who make, in a way which Mr. Speaker cannot hear, an observation which they would not make to me outside this House—an observation, I venture to say, which the hon. Member in question would not address to me twice outside this House, and which the Rules of Procedure are supposed to forbid in this House. To those who do not wish to turn this venerable Chamber into a bear garden, I shall proceed a with the observations which I have to address to the House. I rose to express my support of the proposal which the Government have made. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Front Opposition Bench, by the speech which he made, provided the best possible reason for a curtailment of Parliamentary, Debate. Yesterday the right hon. Gentleman's own leader recognised and admitted that a crisis existed in this country. To-day the right hon. Gentleman who spoke from that bench treated us to a speech typical of old-fashioned Parliamentary obstruction. That was a foretaste of what the Government have to expect in time of crisis from the Labour party if they do not take power to curtail Parliamentary Debate.

Whether we agree or disagree with the Measures proposed by the Govern- ment of the day, I think that we are all compelled to agree that nothing but some policy of rapid action by the Government can extricate this country, and, therefore, in my view, whatever Government has the confidence of this House must have full facility to pass its Measures and put its policy to the test. I do not believe in the policy of the Government, but I believe that that policy should be given a fair trial, and, if that policy fails, I believe that another policy should be offered. The only possible way to get out of our present difficulties is to act quickly, and it is impossible for rapid action to take place if there are Parliamentary delay and obstruction of the old-fashioned order. I would urge the Government to go a great deal further. They have before them, I believe, the report of the Committee on Parliamentary Procedure. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I read it in the Press. Anyhow, it will very shortly be available, and I would urge upon the Government, in view of the developing crisis with which we are faced, that they should consider securing far wider powers of action by Government than exist to-day. If it becomes not just a matter of introducing Supplementary Estimates and an Economy Bill, but, as I believe it must, a matter of reconstructing the industries of this country, the only way to do it with rapidity is for the Government to pass through this House a General Powers Bill conferring upon themselves rapid powers of action, without contracting Parliamentary control.

That is no dictatorship, provided the control of this House is maintained, and if the Government can be dismissed any day by a Vote of Censure, no one can say that the Government is a dictatorship. Any man who is subject to dismissal by his employer any evening is not a dictator, and if a Government can be dismissed any day by a Vote of Censure by the House of Commons, it is nonsense to talk of such a system as a dictatorship. By what other system, except that of giving the Government a free hand to take action, so long as the control of the House of Commons is maintained, can the present situation be met? The House of Commons may not be ready—of course, it is not ready —to go as far as that at present, but I do earnestly beg the House to consider, while there is time, the introduction of a Measure of that kind when it becomes necessary, and, in supporting this proposal of the Government as a first very small instalment of a policy of action, I urge upon the Government and the House consideration of the graver situation which may arise, and of the drastic measures which may be necessary to meet it.

I desire to draw the attention of the House to one small matter, and what I am going to suggest is in the interests of economy. During the War, power was given to the Government to close all the shops of the country at a certain time of night for the purposes of saving light and heat, and the Bill which I have been allowed to introduce into the House, and was unanimously agreed to under the 10 minutes' rule, is only a little Bill. It merely means the alteration of one word in an Act of Parliament, but that alteration of one word will give power to local authorities to make closing orders earlier than they are today. With such powers, economy would be introduced into the working of retail business shops, there would be a lowering of costs, and, possibly, a lowering of prices to the consumer. Because that is so, I respectfully urge the Lord President of the Council to consider the possibility of giving that power to the local authorities. It is only a small matter, but I put it forward in the interests of national economy.

I want to ask whether it is because of fear or for some other reason that this proposal is now brought forward. The hon. Baronet the Member for Smethwick (Sir O. Mosley) is always so ready to remind those of us who are engaged in industry of the necessity for the reconstruction of industry. All the people who know least about industry, its structure or its conduct, are the people who come to those of us who have been engaged in industry all our lives, and tell us that industry requires reconstruction, though they do not make the slightest suggestion as to how reconstruction should be carried out. The nearest approach we had to it was the handsome present that a right hon. Gentleman yesterday was prepared to give to the greatest of the 40 thieves who are engaged in industry by protecting their profits. The hon. Baronet says he is quite prepared to give the Government an opportunity for rushing through its business and preventing private Members from having an opportunity of expressing themselves or promoting anything that they think necessary at the present time. The Government say that they want all the time. Without stating what their proposals are they come to the House and say, "Without letting you know what we are going to do, except that we are going to talk in terms of economy and are going to deal with wages, and are going to attack the whole of the working folk of this country by making their position worse than it is to-day, private Mernbers shall have no place or part in this particular House."

As a private Member I was hoping to have the opportunity of raising a question relating to some members of the Civil Service, relating to the people who are engaged, as the Chief Whip realises—I once sat on a committee with him—in the service of the Admiralty, whose wages are being attacked, and those engaged by the War Office, whose wages also are being attacked, and those engaged in various other Departments. But no; the Government say that all they want is to give security—security that the wage reduction will be only a small one as against the dangerous sliding scale that would make matters worse at the moment. I never knew a House to be treated so unfairly. I am amazed that someone who is endeavouring to lead a new party should support the stifling of discussion in this House. Why are we asked to carry the Motion? What are the Measures that will take any long time?

I have one Bill on the Order Paper. It deals with religious freedom. But no; the Government say, "We are not going to give you an opportunity to grant religious freedom to the Spiritualists of this country." What about the Liberal party, who claim to be the standard-bearers of religious liberty? They are going to support this Motion and prevent the Spiritualists of this country hav- ing the opportunity of professing and practising their particular worship. The Government say there is no time for such a Bill. They say, in effect, "Although we are thinking of economy, we are going to spend money and waste the money of the country by engaging the police force, by engaging more and more detectives and more and more policemen, so that they can watch Sir Oliver Lodge and the family of the late Sir A. Conan Doyle to see that they do not practise Spiritualism." I am amazed to think that we are asked to forgo the whole of private Menthers' time. I wonder what the teachers of the country are going to say when they realise that private Members are to be denied the opportunity of defending them against the vicious attack that is now being made upon their wages. I can quite understand the method that is being adopted by the. Government. It was well described by an hon. Member who referred to the Government as a breakdown gang. I do not know why the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) had to defend himself against the charge that he was a delegate to this House, that he belonged to some caucus or other.

The charge was the other way, on you.

I understand the hon. Member saying that, but it is not true. Those who sit on this side are the representatives of their constituency. The hon. and gallant Member who has just whispered to the hon. Member for Leith is an employer whom I have had to meet. on more than one occasion and he knows that full well.

It will not be in Order for the hon. Member to pursue that. subject.

I am sorry if I transgressed. I suggest that the hon. Member was justified in only one of his statements. That was that this is not a normal House, that it is not called normally. Judging by the proposals that we are asked to consider I should say that it is not normal, and that it will not be normal when the majority on the Government side carries the proposals to the Statute Book. I was hoping that the hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan), who is sitting next to the hon. Member for Leith, would have corrected him. The hon. and gallant Member seemed to applaud the suggestion of crisis. I do not know what particular knowledge he has as to a crisis in this country, whether it is knowledge of any of those foreigners who are dictating to this country as to what it should do. Is this part of the order, the bargain, that you have been told by these people? I know people say that it is wrong to refer to a conspiracy, but it is a very strange thing that many statements were made by employers in the conference room—

That subject has nothing whatever to do with the Motion now before the House.

I am sorry if that is so. I made a reference to it because I felt that the taking away of private Members' time would not enable us to put these points regarding what is happening in the world of finance and industry. I content myself with what I have said about it. I would like to know whether facilities are to be given for the particular Measure relating to religious liberty that I have mentioned.

It was blocked by your own Whips Ali last Session.

Yes, and they were wrong. They may be right now, but at least they were wrong then. The hon. and gallant Member who interjected should not follow a bad example, but should try to set a good example on this occasion. Why is it that the new Government are holding the Saturday so sacred that they are making sure by this Motion that they will not have to engage in any work on a Saturday? Does it mean that if things are in a serious condition we shall not be called upon to meet on a Saturday because the new Government think that Saturday is a sacred day? Apparently we are to go home on Friday at 4 o'clock until the following Monday morning. [Interruption.] I realise that there are some of the Jewish faith in the Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "And on your own side."] I honour the faith of people, and I wish that the Government would do so.

That subject is also out of Order. I have three times drawn the hon. Member s attention to the fact that he is out of Order, and I cannot go on doing it.

it was an interjection that made me transgress. I do not wish to say a wrong word regarding anyone's faith. The Motion before the House ought not to be passed. The rules of the House are adequate to deal with the situation, and it is unjust to the House to bring forward such a Motion at the present time.

I rise now because when I first of all made some observations the right hon. Gentleman who followed me complained that I had said too little, and now when I rise again I am met with cries of "Gag" It is difficult to know what hon. Members do want. As a matter of fact, I have risen to answer various questions which have been put to me with courtesy and perfect propriety. Some of the questions were a little less relevant than others, and there have been some observations to which I do not propose to give any answer at all. First of all, the right hon. Gentleman who replied to me was led away, as so many able men are, by his own subtlety. I am really a very simple person. When I said two or three, minutes ago that we wanted to get our business finished for obvious reasons, it was perfectly patent that the obvious reasons were a General Election, because we were just beginning the last year of our term of office and our intention was well known. Equally it seemed perfectly patent that when I said that we wished to get this legislation through for obvious reasons, it might be within the recollection of the House that I said yesterday that time is of the essence of the contract. It is necessary for the world at large to know that we not only have proposals to put into law, but that we have put them into law as quickly as possible. Nothing was further from my mind than a General Election, but it did afford an opportunity for some humorous observations, and I have no complaint to make about that.

I have been asked about the business. The principal business is the Economy Bill and the Finance Bill. There will also be a Public Works Loans Bill. It is possible that the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill may be taken, hut that is not certain yet. There are certain other Bills, mainly of a non-controversial nature, which are being examined at present, and the moment a decision is reached as to whether or not they shall be taken, the House will be acquainted with the fact.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say if that includes the London Passenger Transport Bill?

I cannot give any details at present. That question ought to be addressed as usual to the Leader of the House. With regard to the business, to-morrow is Thursday, the day when a statement as to business is always made by the Leader of the House and the business for next week will then be announced. I respectfully suggest that questions on business should be addressed to the Leader of the House, as is customary, at that time. With regard to the complaint put up by private Members about Private Members' Bills, I have every sympathy with them. I have heard that complaint every year that I have been in the House of Commons, and I may have made it myself. But what we have to look at is this. Whatever Government is in power no Private Members' Bill at this time of the Session ever has a chance of getting through. I cannot hold out any hope that we can make exceptions in this special period of the Session, having regard to the fact that no exceptions have been made that I know of by the Government on any of these occasions.

I would like to make an observation about Bills in progress, touching the point mentioned by hon. Members opposite. These come within the category of Bills, as to which we are considering what should be done. There is very little chance of any Bill in progress being further considered, unless it is treated as entirely non-controversial, but I will not commit myself. Each case is being carefully examined and immediately a decision has been come to the House will be acquainted with it. There is no desire to hide anything of the kind. I should like to say a few words in answer to the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen). There is no one in the House who cormbines a more innocent and appealing expression with skill in these matters than he, and when he looked at me and said, "A. Bill under the Ten Minutes Rule—what is it?" I felt inclined to reply, "Yes, what is it?" I quite agree. If one man treads upon your toes you do not mind it much, but if 20 men do it at once you do mind it." As far as I am concerned I would not mind the hon. Member putting down one of his little Bills under the Ten Minute's Rule, but what if 20 of his friends should put down such Bills on the same day? Where would the Government business be then? We cannot risk it.

I am grateful for the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, but can he tell me if there is going to be anything within the proposals of the Government that will deal with rent restrictions?

I do not think I ought to divulge any portion of the Chancellor's speech. If the hon. Member cares to do so he will be able to listen to it to-morrow and the taking of the time of private Members will not limit any contribution which the hon. Member may desire to offer. I think those are the proper and legitimate points which have been raised. I have tried to answer them as briefly as I can. I recognise that it is, perhaps, specially incumbent upon me to keep in order on this occasion; I quite recognise the extreme narrowness of the terms of the Resolution which we are considering, and therefore I do not propose to say anything further.

The explanation which has been offered by the right hon. Gentleman is most unsatisfactory and does not in any sense justify us in accepting the proposal of the Government. I understood the right. hon. Gentleman to base his argument for the necessity for this step upon two principles. First, he told us that, in normal times, any Private Members' Bills at this stage of the Session had no chance of reaching the Statute Book. Secondly, he said that the Government were appropriating these privileges of the Private Member, because 20 Members might, possibly, for purposes of obstruction, put down Bills on the same day. I respectfully ask the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to consider the rather exceptional circumstances which exist. We are undoubtedly living in a period of great public anxiety and misgiving about the position of the country and I am rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should fall back upon an argument which deals with normality, as an excuse for this proposal. After all, this is not a normal Government. We are not living in normal times and if the Government is to carry out its duties as a National Government, then the last thing it ought to do is to deprive Private Members of the opportunity of making suggestions in relation to this crisis.

We all appreciate the fact that as far as major issues of policy arc concerned the responsibility must rest upon the Government of the day. If this is to be really a National Government then, certainly it ought not to prevent the ordinary Private Member, who represents his constituency in this House, from bringing forward such proposals as he can think of-proposals which may be useful to the nation, which, without imposing taxation, many have general approval in all parts of the House, and which might, possibly with great advantage, he placed upon the Statute Book even during an emergency Session of Parliament. I am sure that if a completely frivolous use of Private Members' time were made in order to prevent the serious issues which Parliament is called upon to face being properly discussed, the Government might then be justified in taking the step now proposed. But they are not entitled to take such a step without giving some indication of how they propose to use the time. There is an old adage with which we are all familiar, that it. is the duty of an Opposition to oppose and that the more time an Opposition can waste, the less harm a Government can do. That adage may be fitted to normal times. What we want now is not the opportunity of opposition merely for the sake of opposition, but we are entitled to retain our privileges of opposing when we think that national interests are being severely damaged.

To take away the privileges of private Members in the way proposed is an outrage upon the Parliamentary system. The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) raised an extremely important issue with regard to the question of rents. If unemployed people are to suffer heavy reductions in the sums of money available for them, it becomes a matter of tremendous importance whether or not rents are to be reduced. There are many other issues of a similar character. A great many unemployed men have undertaken responsibilities for the purchase of their houses on the instalment system. They have mortgages to meet and all kinds of difficulties to face. We have been assured by very high financial authorities and we have had many indications of the fact that a policy is being pursued, part of which is a deliberate plan to reduce wages and salaries, not only in the public service but throughout the whole field of production. A great many problems will be created which cannot be foreseen in framing a temporary policy merely to save money.

As part of that policy to which I have referred we are witnessing developments in this country in which ordinary shareholders in a great many industrial undertakings are being robbed of their life savings; industries and businesses are going into the hands of debenture holders; industries are being closed down without any regard for the interests of local communities and so on. Problems of this kind open up a wide field where the private Member might be able to make his or her contribution to the problems with which this emergency Government is faced. Let me draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to one matter which might have an extremely important. effect upon the balancing of the Budget. We all know that in many areas of this country to-day there are thousands of men—in the aggregate probably hundreds of thousands of men—who are working overtime and long hours. On the other hand you have men going to the Employment Exchanges, who are equally efficient and who have perhaps been in the service of the same firms for half their lifetime—

I do not see that this has anything to do with the Motion.

If you would be kind enough, Sir, to allow me to develop my argument, I respectfully suggest that it has great relevance to the business before the, House.

If I allow the hon. Member to develop his argument it will then be too late to intervene.

I do not wish, Sir, to refrain from observing your wishes but I was about to say that a private Members Bill which made it illegal for a firm to overwork large numbers of employés, without any economic necessity, thus creating a charge on public funds for unemployment insurance, could be brought forward and that a well thought-out Bill on those lines might, both on grounds of economy and of expediency, command almost universal assent. If this is a National Government, if it is a Government concerned with economy and anxious to save public funds, there is a suggestion for it which might be put forward by a private Member but is not in the least likely to be put forward by the so-called National Government. If the Government is really national why does it propose to rob itself of the opportunity of considering suggestions from private Members which might help the nation to face up to the difficulties Confronting it?

I think it is indefensible for the right hon. Gentleman to make himself responsible for a Resolution of this kind without giving us the slightest indication of how the Government propose to use the time. If they propose to utilise it in ways indicated by some speeches of Members of the Government they may do far more harm than the private Member could possibly do. They may damage the country's interests far more in those ways than they would by allowing the private Member to have his say. I hope that Members, irrespective of party, in view of their responsibilities to their constituents and not to Parliamentary machines, and not to the Whips of the Government, will not go into the Lobby

I think the hon. Member has fully developed his argument now.

I do not wish to prolong the discussion unnecessarily nor do I wish, Sir, to incur your displeasure. A National Government ought to be the last to take away the rights of the private Member and to prevent his making constructive suggestions to meet the difficulties with which the State is confronted. I hope that Members on all sides of the House will see to it that this power is not taken away from the private Member.

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

On a point of Order. Is the Motion to be divided upon separately on the different points in it, or do you intend, Mr. Speaker, to take all the points as one Motion?

If that demand had been made earlier, when I first put the Question, I could have divided it into three, but now that I have put it and the Question in regard to the Closure has been settled by the House, I cannot take that course.

Further to that point of Order. Will you consider, Mr. Speaker, that there was no opportunity to put that matter earlier? I rose several times during the Debate, but was not called, so as to put that point. Further, the Closure was moved against us, and it is well known that we cannot put such a question during the period when the Division is in progress.

That matter should have been raised when the Question was first put at the beginning of the sitting, and then I could have put each point separately, but I cannot do that now.

May I put it to you, with all respect, that it was impossible to have that matter put earlier? I have already stated that I rose several times to speak on this matter, but you did not call upon me. I tried to put it at the earliest possible time. As the Debate has gone on for about two hours, it. is surely advisable that these particular points should be put separately.

I think that the House will agree that I generally give Members every opportunity of putting points of Order. The point raised by the hon. Member would obviously have been a point of Order.

I had hoped to put it during a speech.