§ MR. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the early adjournment on the preceding night was not an unprecedented proceeding and au infringement of the rights of private Members, for whom Tuesday and Wednesday nights were specially reserved.
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. GEORGE WHITELEY,) Yorkshire, W.R., Pudseysaid that under the circumstances it would have been unfair and inconvenient to Members if private Members' Bills in which they were interested had been taken while they were in ignorance of the fact that these particular measures were to be discussed. Moreover, he thought the adjournment was moved with the general agreement of the House.
§ MR. JESSE COLLINGSpointed out that some hours before eight o'clock arrangements were made to discuss the Small Holdings Bill, and several Members remained in the House for that purpose.
§ MR. GEORGE WHITELEYexpressed regret that the right hon. Gentleman's Bill did not come before the House, but repeated that there was a general feeling that the House should adjourn.
§ MR. JESSE COLLINGSMay I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if under the circumstances he will give facilities for this Bill?
§ MR. ASQUITHI am afraid I could not give any such undertaking. The adjournment appears to have been assented to without a division.
§ LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.)Did not this difficulty arise from the unfortunate operation of the rule against anticipation, and will the right hon. Gentleman give an opportunity for the discussion of the Amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.
§ MR. ASQUITHThat may be so, and I am as anxious as anybody to see the new Standing Order passed, but the noble Lord knows on what condition only that can be done.
§ COLONEL SEELY (Liverpool, Abercromby)From what quarter of the House does the opposition to it emanate?
§ MR. ASQUITHThat will be seen on reference to the Order Paper.