In the course of the Debate yesterday, I attributed certain remarks to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, to which he took exception. In order that the House may realise what those remarks were, perhaps hon. Members will forgive me if I read them briefly:

"I can remember the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition at about the same time saying that in no circumstances were they going to vote in support of the Government's rearmament programme, because, I believe the official excuse was, it was not to be used for collective security, but only for the defence of English men, women, and children."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th October, 1938 cols. 436-7, Vol. 239.]

Let me make it quite clear that the words

"for the defence of English men, women and children"

were not the words used by the right hon. Gentleman, but were my own; nor did it ever occur to me that the remark could ever be interpreted otherwise. If that was what the right hon. Gentleman took exception to, I can assure him that I did not intend to attribute it to him in any way. Over the rest of the remark, I do not think we are particularly at variance, but I draw my authority for that remark from the official report of the Labour Party Conference, where the right hon. Gentleman did say:

"there can be no question of our supporting the Government in its rearmament policy."

It is true that that was in the middle of a very long speech, but the apposite parts of the speech, I think, are these:

"The Government have put forward a rearmament policy. They have not related it to a League policy. They had the greatest chance of uniting the people of this country behind a real peace policy, in which they could have got support for whatever arms were required, and they deliberately threw it away."

I do not think that that is at variance with what I have attributed to the right hon. Gentleman. I also depended on another quotation, which was recorded in the "Times" of 9th July, 1936, and also in the "Nottingham Guardian" of the same date. It was a speech at Derby during a by-election. The right hon. Gentleman, on the question of getting recruits for the Army, said:

"They will appeal to us, and they will appeal in vain because I am not going to support a recruiting campaign by a Government whose foreign policy I cannot trust."

If it is to the end of my quotation that the right hon. Gentleman took exception, I freely assure him that I had no intention whatever of attributing to him a remark, which, quite clearly, he would never have made on a public platform or indeed, I think, in this House or elsewhere. That was my comment on the attitude of the party opposite. For the rest of the remarks, I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that I had sufficient justification for what I said.

I thank the hon. Member for his explanation, but no one could have told when he was making his speech what was quotation and where his own comment began or ended, and even the part that he quoted, or professed to quote, is incorrect. He used the word "programme" instead of the word "policy." The fact was that I was in the course of a somewhat long argument in support of the Labour party attitude in providing sufficient arms for the defence of this country, and in the course of that I drew a distinction not between collective security and the defence of English men, women and children, but I was stressing the difference between the competition in arms and the defence of our country through collective security by collective action, which, as the present Government had recently at that time declared, could alone save us from a return to the old system which resulted in the Great War.

Has the Prime Minister given consideration to the representation I made to him with regard to other business before this House was dismissed?

Yes, Sir. I presume that the right hon. Gentleman refers to what he said the other day when he protested against this House being adjourned to-day and not meeting again until the 1st of next month.

Certainly, I put certain points to the right hon. Gentleman. I said that no one knew much about this guarantee, as to how it was to operate, when it was to come into force, and exactly what our obligations were. I also asked with regard to the loan, and with regard to the expenditure during the crisis. I further asked about air-raid precautions and defence against aerial attack. I suggested to the Prime Minister that this House should not depart until we had discussed these matters, and I may add that to-day there is the question as to how affairs are going in Czechoslovakia at the present time.

I did consider all these points, and I came definitely to the conclusion that we could not usefully discuss them yet. In regard to the Guarantee, first, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence has made a statement which, at any rate, clarifies the immediate position with regard to the Guarantee. With regard to the ultimate position of the Guarantee, which will not be reached, of course, until the guarantees of Germany and Italy have also been considered. Let me explain that that will have to be embodied in a clause or a treaty by the respective Governments giving the guarantees, and Czechoslovakia. As that clause has not been drafted, and as, indeed, there are several rather important considerations which have not yet been decided, I think we could not possibly usefully discuss the matter at this stage.

With regard to the loan, here again we are not in a position to say any more about the loan than what we have already said. What we said was that we thought it was essential to provide for the immediate needs in Czechoslovakia, and that we have done. As to what amount of help Czechoslovakia will want, for what purposes, under what conditions and how such money is to be distributed— all these things are matters which require further investigation. Having provided, as I say, for the immediate needs, we cannot possibly give the House any further information until these further inquiries and investigations have been made. As to Supplementary Estimates, there is no question of urgency. What Supplementary Estimates have to be presented can be so presented after the House meets on 1st November. Air-raid precautions, again, require a survey, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already mentioned, and when the House meets we shall be in a very much better position to tell what conclusions we have been able to draw from our experiences during the recent emergency and what further steps we may think it necessary to ask the country to take.

I believe that it will be the opinion of the whole House, and certainly it is the opinion of my hon. Friends and myself, that Ministers who have been bearing this tremendous load and responsibility, and especially the Prime Minister, ought to be released for a period of, perhaps, rest and, certainly, reflection on the changing scene. It is particularly important in my opinion and in the opinion of my hon. Friends, that Ministers at the heads of Departments concerned with our relations with foreign Powers, and with the Dominions, and also with the fighting services, should have time to adjust themselves and the immediate policies of their Departments to the tremendous changes which have taken place so rapidly in Europe and those which are still going on.

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Are we not now—

I was about to intervene. There is nothing before the House.

May I, on a point of Order, submit this to you?

The right hon. Member the Leader of the Liberal Party must realise that there is no question before the House. The question which the Leader of the Opposition asked was on business.

May I submit this to you? Are we to have the possibility of debating this question of Adjournment at all and the question of how long the Adjournment should be.

That rests with the House. The Motion on the Paper is debatable.

We shall come to that presently.

On the question of business, may I put a question to the Prime Minister? We all desire that this money should be given to Czechoslovakia, but the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the present arrangement is entirely extra statutory. In fact, if the money has been granted by the Bank, I believe it is a breach of Section 30 of the Charter Statute. Could not the Prime Minister give time to get some token approval by the House of Commons, otherwise this grant is no more than a personal responsibility of the Chancellor and is, however much we sympathise with it, a serious infringement of the financial control of this House?

That is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Does the Government contemplate that it will be necessary to have a separate agreement between this country and Germany to give effect to the private arrangement between Herr Hitler and the Prime Minister that in future they will submit all questions of dispute to arbitration rather than to force?

No, Sir, certainly not.

On a point of Order. I should like to call attention to a paragraph which appears in the "Times" this morning, which I will read:

"Domestically much interest has been attached to the strength and intentions of the dissident Conservatives, but it now seems that they are stronger in quality than in number. They are expected to number about 25, and will register their dissent by abstaining from voting on the confidence motion. They are believed to include Mr. Churchill, Mr. Eden, Lord Cranborne, Sir Sidney Herbert, Mr. J. P. L. Thomas, Mr. Cartland, and Mr. Law. They are to some degree indignant that their quota of debating time has now been exhausted, and that no more of them will be allowed to speak to-day."

I do not know whether the question of Privilege arises, but I should like to ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker. It is quite clear that this paragraph contains a very grave reflection upon your impartiality, which will be justifiably resented by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

I do not think that we ought to treat this matter so seriously as to make it a matter of Privilege, but I should say that it is very unfortunate that a pronouncement of that kind should be made regarding my action as to which Members I have selected as having caught my eye. It has been made without any foundation of fact. Newspapers have very wide circulation, and quite a wrong impression may be given of the action of the Chair by statements of this kind. The statement had no authority at all.

Call upon them for an apology to-morrow.

I do not wish to raise a long debate on this Motion. Everybody realises the great strain there has been on the Prime Minister and that he needs a rest, but there are other Ministers beside the Prime Minister, and I think it is important that this House should be kept in Session. The events that are proceeding in Central Europe to-day are being followed with great anxiety by this country, and with increasing disturbance of mind as reports come through. It is a mistake that this House should depart while matters are in such jeopardy, and it is desirable that we should keep the closest watch on events and get the fullest amount of information. I think that this House, although it may be tired, should have regard to the fact that it has its responsibilities and that we have taken on new responsibilities, whether by the guarantee which is to be embodied in a treaty, or whether under what we may call the moral guarantee which has been assumed on behalf of this country by the Prime Minister, and we ought to be here and watchful, doing our business. There is plenty of business to be done. While the Prime Minister is having his rest the House should continue to sit.

I am very sorry that I was out of order when I was referring to this matter earlier. It seems to me that the Prime Minister and certain other Ministers should have a rest, and it is necessary that the heads of Departments should adjust themselves to the new, and, I am afraid, still rapidly changing situation, but on the other hand I feel great sympathy and a very large measure of agreement with the plea which the Leader of the Opposition has just put forward that Parliament ought not to allow the control of this situation, as far as it can control it, to slip out of its hands. Many Members on all sides of the House, and many people not in the House of Commons or in Parliament said to me during the recent crisis that it was a great pity that Parliament was not in being and that the moulding and expression of opinion was left to the newspapers, with their necessarily inadequate sources of information, and with the impossibility for them of questioning Ministers and clarifying the real issues.

I was speaking only yesterday to one of the big men in the newspaper world, and he said that it was his experience that the events of August and September when Parliament was in recess threw an altogether unfair responsibility upon those who control newspapers, because they themselves found the greatest difficulty in giving guidance to public opinion without the advantage of debates and the clarifying of issues in the House of Commons, in this democratic assembly, whose duty it is to the people of this country to carry out these functions. These points of view—on the one hand the necessity for certain Ministers to rest and the heads of Departments to adjust themselves to the new situation, and, on the other hand, the necessity for Parliament to keep some control of the situation—could be met if we adjourned now for 10 days and met again on Tuesday, 18th October, for two days, to discuss then the situation as we find it and then to decide whether or not to sit on. My suggestion is that we should not take ordinary business until the beginning of November, but that we should meet on Tuesday, 18th October, to consider the situation as it then stands and decide how long it will be necessary to remain in session.

I should like to add my voice to what has been said by the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Opposition. In my opinion there has been a gross constitutional breach by His Majesty's Government in making a complete change in the foreign policy of this country without the authority of Parliament. I am not aware that there is any precedent in history for that course having been adopted, particularly when the Prime Minister was asked by the Leaders of the two Opposition parties to call Parliament together. For that very reason I hope the House will insist on remaining in Session or fix an earlier date than 1st November for meeting. Obviously, matters are changing from day to day and almost from hour to hour. I feel confident that the people of this country, in the first place, think that Parliament ought to have been called together at an earlier date than was the case, and that public opinion will agree that it is essential and necessary for Parliament to continue to sit, or to meet at a much earlier date than 1st November. It seems to me that there is something lacking in the procedure or in the constitution of Parliament, as there appear to be no means, such as exist in the case of limited companies and other bodies, whereby a substantial minority of the Members may demand the recall of Parliament. The recall of Parliament depends entirely on the initiative of the Government, and in this case I think they have departed from an age-long tradition. The House should insist on continuing to sit, or to meet at a much earlier date.

As the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now present may I put to him with the greatest respect the point I put to the Prime Minister some time ago. We all want to grant this sum of £10,000,000 to Czechoslovakia, but at the present moment it is being done under note of hand by the Chancellor of the Exchequer without hon. Members having had an opportunity of giving, as we should, unanimous assent in some form of a Resolution. For one whole month the £10,000,000 credit will be owing to the Bank of England with no sort of statutory basis whatever, and the same practice if persisted in might be used for quite other purposes. I would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is not possible in some way to register the approval of this House in order that the Bank of England may be free from any penalty under Section 30 of the Act of 1694 which says that if they lend money without statutory authority the directors are themselves personally responsible for treble the amount they have lent?

The sum of £10,000,000 has been described by the Prime Minister as an advance but may I remind the House that the sum mentioned by President Benes was £30,000,000. The problem is this. The Prime Minister has said that before the final sum can be fixed much more must be known. Events are moving very quickly, and it may be that before 1st November it will be necessary to make a further advance. I am much more concerned in getting as much for Czechoslovakia as is possible than with the point of procedure, and, therefore, I should like to know whether there is any way in which the House can consent to this sum of £10,000,000 and at the same time indicate that a sum of £30,000,000 is to be given to Czechoslovakia before we meet again?

I think I am entitled to support the compromise put forward by the right hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair). There was a feeling in many parts of the country that the House should have been called together earlier, and they will be rather shocked at the idea that Parliament is not to be in session during a period which will probably be more grave and critical than at any time in the long history of this country. I understand entirely that Ministers must be given repose after their tremendous efforts, especially those who have had the chief conduct of these terrible affairs, but I think the compromise meets the case. Other Ministers we believe to be equally exhausted by the moral strain of resigning in the morning and withdrawing their resignation in the evening. There seems to me to be a curious and dangerous tendency in this country for evil communications to corrupt good manners. We are being treated more and more as a kind of Reichstag to meet only to hear the orations and register the decrees of the government of the day. If I might parody a famous Motion once debated here with very good results upon the country, the power of the Patronage Secretary has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished.

Events are moving very rapidly, far more rapidly than some people realise. The whole financial structure of Czechoslovakia is on the point of collapse, and it is doubtful whether a sum of the character of £10,000,000 can save the banking and financial structure of the country. There are other equally rapid results taking place which will affect, not our late allies and friends but ourselves. A formidable attack has already been launched on the export trade of England The "Times"—by a strange dualism, the editor does not seem to read his foreign correspondents' messages—prints the most formidable accounts of what is already taking place under a new plan, and a most dangerous plan, which is being concocted against this country. An economic attack on the export trade of England is coming with the vastly increased power of our competitors operating under a wholly different system of complete control without regard to profits, and selling without regard to cost. These are questions which Parliament should be called to meet and take rapid executive decisions if something is still to be saved out of the dangerous position we have reached. By going away and not meeting until 1st November, it means that this year will be treated as a normal year, with three months' holiday only interrupted by the last few days. We shall preserve the ordinary system of our parliamentary life but we shall tend to increase the dangerous feeling that the whole thing is over, that we have "peace in our time," that we need not bother any more but revert to the normal structure of our life whereas, in fact, I say honestly from the bottom of my heart that I think the situation with which we are faced to-day in this country, with which the world is faced, and with which freedom, justice and liberty are faced, is more dangerous and more formidable, more terrible than at any time since the beginning of Christian civilisation.

It might, perhaps, be convenient if I were to deal, in a few sentences, with the points put to me very clearly by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn). The right hon. Gentleman called attention to the method that has been adopted in consequence of which the Bank of England is providing a credit of £10,000,000, of which the House knows. I agree that the method that has been adopted is one that should be adopted only in circumstances of real urgency. One ought to regard it as being an entirely exceptional procedure. It is desirable in all cases which are not of that exceptional character that we should get Parliamentary authority in advance for any step of that kind.

At the same time the House must appreciate exactly what has been done. There is nothing in what has been done which raises a constitutional objection. What has happened is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on behalf of the Government, has asked the Bank of England whether it would provide this credit, and the only further thing that has been stated is that when Parliament resumes, the Government will present to Parliament the necessary Measure which, if Parliament adopts it, will provide that sum from the public funds. It is for the Bank of England to say whether, in those circumstances, it will or will not advance the money. No public fund has been pledged, and no payment has been made out of the Consolidated Fund, or can be made, until, of course, Parliament decides whether it will authorise the Government to act. Naturally, I trust and believe Parliament will authorise that, and I am sure that everybody agrees with the remark of the right hon. Gentleman when he said that it was our universal wish. There is nothing unconstitutional or unprecedented in such a proceeding. It has arisen in the past from a number of different reasons; in fact, it arose earlier this year when I had to announce in the course of my Budget speech that we had taken certain steps which would need Parliamentary authority in connection with food storage.

There are no other precedents, except the Suez Canal.

The right hon. Gentleman is very confident about there being no other precedents. I am not so sure. I want the House to understand that there is nothing in the least unconstitutional or irregular; it is extremely exceptional, and I should regard it as most disastrous to our proceedings if it were not regarded as being of an entirety exceptional character. There is nothing whatever in the point that it would be all right if we met in a fortnight's time and passed legislation and all wrong if we met on 1st November. The right hon. Gentleman has made researches, and we all admire his keenness in this matter. I understood him to refer to Section 30 of the Charter Statute of 1694. I do not profess to carry all these things in my head, but I asked the Solicitor-General to go to the Library and look the matter up; and he informs me that the Charter Statute in force has not got a Section 30 in it. The date is 1844, but that happens to be exactly a century and a half after the year which the right hon. Gentleman quoted.

I consulted the authorities of the House and I looked up the Statute. The right hon. Gentleman will find a Section marked XXX in Roman figures. If the right hon. Gentleman and the Solicitor-General are right in detail, then I have made a mistake. However, I wish to put a question to the Chancellor. Let us take two events of varying probability. Suppose that the Government should call an election, and suppose that they should be defeated, what would happen to the Bank of England in that case?

If I give full credence to some of the declarations made by hon. Members opposite, the Bank of England will suffer something very severe indeed.

I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give the House some information with regard to the terms of this credit. There is one point which seems to me to be substantial and relevant. This credit has been made, and I understand it is now being acted upon. Parliament will discuss the matter and may very well wish, in making a credit of £10,000,000, to know whether it is a free and unconditional credit, and whether the Czechs can draw upon it and use it for any purpose which they may think fit. That is a matter on which the House is entitled to have information, for it might very well be that the money might be used for purposes which might mean putting it in the hands of the invading forces from Germany. It might be that the money would be disposed of in some way which the House would not approve. I should be glad if the Chancellor would give some information on this point.

I think I follow the point put by the hon. Gentleman, but in reply I would remind him and the House that the body that makes the advance is not the Government, but is the Bank of England. It is the Bank of England that we have requested to provide that sum and it is a fact that, as the hon. Gentleman said, the Bank of England is providing it, I believe, as a sterling credit in London in favour of the Czechoslovak Government. That is not the provision of any credit by the Government. It cannot be. The Bank of England understands that perfectly well. It is the provision of a credit by the Bank of England—

Is it unconditional?

The position is just as I have stated. We requested the Bank of England to provide a credit of £10,000,000, and it is, as a matter of fact, sterling in London in favour of the Czechoslovak Government. I agree that when we come to consider the terms of any Bill which is presented to authorise its incorporation in any larger scheme, it may very well be that we shall have to consider exactly what it is we are meaning to do; but by common consent, this is a most urgent matter which did not call for a moment's delay. It would have been a cruel thing to discuss all these niceties when the credit was needed so quickly. I think the House as a whole approved at the time, as I think it still does, that we should ask the Bank of England whether it was prepared to do this on no other assurance than that on 1st November we would present a Bill to the House and invite the House to give its assent.

I want to appeal to the Prime Minister, using the words that were used yesterday by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he spoke of the new policy of sweet reasonableness.

I did not use those words.

They have been used. I apologise if I attributed sweet reasonableness to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I suggest seriously that it would give a feeling of confidence and calm to the nation if Parliament were sitting. I have been in the closest touch during the days of emergency with a very large number of people belonging to the ranks of the Civil Service, the higher professional ranks, scientific people and others who were extraordinarily perturbed by the fact of Parliament not being in Session. I believe that if Parliament were in Session, if there were an opportunity existing of questions being asked and answers given, that would give a feeling of security to the country; and I do urge very strongly that this decision to adjourn till 1st November be altered and that at least the compromise suggested by the Leader of the Liberal Opposition be accepted. A rest is urgently needed for medical reasons as well as others perhaps.

May I add my plea to the Prime Minister that he will consider the very reasonable request of the Leader of the Liberal party that we should go away for ten days and meet on the 18th for a day or two? After all, we are passing through a period of very rapid daily change in Europe of the most disturbing character, and it does not seem quite right that Parliament should go away for 25 days as if nothing was going on and as if it had lost interest in matters which affect the whole future of this country. It is derogatory to Parliament, it seems to me, that it should be thought unfit as it were to be attending to these grave matters, that it should be sent away upon a holiday in one of the most formidable periods through which we have lived. I know that there is a certain under-current of derision of Parliament even among its own Members, and a feeling no doubt among Ministers "What relief it will be when we have got them sent about their business and we can get on with our work." That is exactly the idea which in other countries has led to the institution of dictatorships, the same process of impatience with the parliamentary machine which has swept it away and has led to its replacement by one-man rule.

Why, we even hear that the Cabinet is undergoing rapid modification, that only a few were consulted in matters of consequence, the rest being brought in from time to time only to register decisions in respect of matters of which they had only partial cognisance and being told that certain matters were being settled. That is an additional reason why Parliament should not be separated far and wide when these matters are being dealt with by what are called the Big Four. That is so widely felt in the country that it is not right that we should not be called together again. It is too long to wait until 1st November. We do not know what will happen by then. I hope that the Prime Minister, who, after all, is the head of a democratic State and is the champion and Leader of this House, of one of the surviving parliamentary democracies, will see that it is not an unfair or unreasonable request to ask that on Tuesday, the 18th, we are called together to survey the situation as it may exist at that time.

It will be remembered that the original plea of the Leader of the Opposition was that Parliament should continue to sit and that it was based on four considerations which he put to me. I gave him an answer to those four questions. It was to the effect that I did not think any of them could reasonably be discussed in the immediate present. The request to-day has been put to me on entirely different grounds. Let me say first of all that I have not asked that the House should rise now and not sit again till 1st November on the plea that I wanted a rest. I am not so exhausted that I cannot carry out my duties, whatever they may be. I do not pretend that I am not as fond of a holiday as anyone else. But on this matter, this suggestion that in the next fortnight or three weeks something might happen which is of importance and which this House should have an opportunity of speaking its mind upon—upon that hypothesis I do ask hon. Members to look at the terms of the Motion. The Motion provides for the usual procedure, under which the House can be summoned by Mr. Speaker to meet again if such a situation should arise.

But only on the advice of His Majesty's Government.

Really it is unworthy of my right hon. Friend on an occasion of this kind.

Will my right hon. Friend kindly explain why the perfectly innocent question that I put to him, whether it was only on the advice of His Majesty's Ministers that Parliament could be summoned, should receive from him the wholly inappropriate expression of "unworthy"?

I will tell my right hon. Friend exactly what I think was unworthy of him. It was not his question just now but the suggestion that he made a few moments ago that Cabinet Ministers would be glad to see the House dispersed in order that they might get on with their business instead of having to face the House. A repetition of tittle-tattle about the way in which Cabinet business is conducted is not doing justice to the sincerity and to the sense of responsibility of Cabinet Ministers. It is true that the House can be called together only on a representation to Mr. Speaker by His Majesty's Government, but that is not to say that we are not fully conscious of the gravity of the times and that we are not fully prepared at any moment, if in our judgment the situation requires it, to give up our holiday and to return at once and answer to the House for anything that we might do. That, really, is a sufficient safeguard for those Members of the House