§ *THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD, Somersetshire, Wellington)said that the first order for Tuesday would be the adjourned debate on the Post Office (Telephone Agreement). [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh."] He had informed the hon. Member who had an Amendment down as well as the hon. Member for Leeds. He did not think the discussion would take long, and it would be followed by the Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— (Sir A. Acland-Hood.)
403§ MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs)expressed surprise at the change in the order of business proposed. Everybody expected the Finance Bill would be the first order. What was the urgency for the appointment of this Committee? What was the reason which had induced the right hon. Gentleman to put forward the appointment of this Committee to-morrow? Such a Committee could not alter the agreement and it had simply got to say that it agreed with it. He thought that to appoint the Committee at all was a waste of the time of the House. What was the real urgency of this course? Was it because the Government were having a general sweep up in view of a general election? If the right hon. Gentleman would say that was the reason he should be very glad to assist him, but unless he gave them some satisfactory reason he thought he would find that it would take considerably more time than he was anticipating.
§ MR. CHURCHILL (Oldham)said it was rather inconvenient that such short notice should be given of the fixing of a day for the discussion of a subject in which such an extraordinary amount of interest was taken by the great commercial bodies outside the House. He should have right hon. Gentleman would have given them two or three days notice at least. Surely the attention of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues had been drawn to the resolution passed by the Manchester Chamber of Commerce on this subject, and the very strong opinion entertained in Manchester and Liverpool as to the composition of this Committee.
§ MR. KEARLEY (Devonport)said it would have facilitated matters if the right hon. Gentleman had given adequate notice of his intention to take this question of the appointment of this Committee. By the course suggested there would actually be no opportunity given to them 404 of either amending or rejecting the agreement. He would suggest that it should be postponed until Monday. If this course was persisted in it might lead to a prolonged debate, and the discussion on the Finance Bill would be curtailed in consequence.
§ MR. JOSEPH WALTON (Yorkshire, W.R., Barnsley)joined in the appeal that the right hon. Gentleman should allow a clear day for the general discussion of the Second Reading of the Finance Bill. Owing to the discussion of the Motion for adjournment that evening, the Finance Bill had not been reached. He hoped the general discussion on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill would not be curtailed, as would undoubtedly be the case if the Telephone Agreement was put down as the first order to-morrow.
§ MR. MCKENNA (Monmouthshire, N.)reminded the right hon. Gentleman that notice had already been given that it was the intention of the Government to take the Finance Bill to-morrow and then the Rating Bill. Now, when the House was practically empty, it was proposed without any notice to take the Telephone Agreement. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would facilitate the business of the House if he adhered to the arrangement originally made, upon the authority of which a large number of Members had gone home expecting to find that the first business to-morrow would be the Finance Bill. He did not think the course suggested was treating them, quite fairly.
§ *SIR A. ACLAND-HOODsuggested that a Question should be put to the Leader of the House next day, and that an agreement might then be come to.
§ Adjourned at thirteen minutes after Twelve o'clock.