§ Mr. DILLONIn regard to the procedure to be adopted to-day in the Debate on the Mesopotamia Commission, I should like to put a question to the Leader of the House. The Motion on which we are taking this Debate is of a vague and indefinite character, and no decision can be arrived at. I think it would be greatly to the convenience of those who are taking part in the Debate if the right hon. Gentleman could tell us what is the present plan of the Government in reply to a question. The Debate opened yesterday by a statement from the Attorney-General that the plan of the Government was to institute a special form of inquiry under the Army (Courts of Inquiry) Act, 1916, but in the course of the Debate the Government gave it to be understood that they were open to persuasion to adopt another course. It is impossible to move an Amendment to the Motion for the Adjournment of the House and to take the sense of the House on that. I cannot see how the sense of the House can be obtained under this procedure, and I cannot see how the Government can get us out of the difficulty we are placed in if we continue the Debate on the Motion for the Adjournment. It would have been better for the Government to make a Motion embodying that policy and allow us an opportunity of moving Amendments. We are in a great difficulty, and I do not see how the Government are going to collect any reliable indication of the opinion of the House. I should like to ask the Leader of the House if he can see his way to help us in this difficulty. I do not recollect any precedent for it. Perhaps he could state what the Government are at present inclined to do, and, therefore, make it clear what we are to be called upon to debate to-day?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWThe Attorney-General announced the plan which, on his advice, the Government thought it best to take. At the same time he stated that there was an alternative, and that the Government were quite willing, to adopt that if in the opinion of the House it seemed the better plan. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs last night intimated that, in our 2306 view, the sense of the House was in favour of the second alternative, and unless, something alters our view during the Debate to-day that is the course we intend to adopt.
§ Mr. S. MacNEILLHow can you take the sense of the House unless by question put by the Speaker from the Chair? Two days ago I asked, in reference to this method of Motion by Adjournment, how there could be any vote taken expressive of public opinion by the House, and the right hon. Gentleman pooh-poohed it in a very superior style.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWThe hon. Member is wrong in his last assertion. I do not think I could pooh-pooh anybody in a superior style. As regards the last part of his question, the difficulty was to know what form of Motion would be best. We considered it would be best to adopt the precedent already followed. As to the possibility of finding out the views of the House, I have never found in my time, as Leader of the House, any difficulty in ascertaining the general view of the House. In any ease, whatever proposal the Government thinks it right to adopt, in accordance with the general opinion, it will be embodied in a formal Act setting up the tribunal, and then there will be an opportunity for hon. Members to move Amendments.
§ Mr. HOGGEIn regard to the Adjournment Motion, seeing that there are certain Motions on the Paper, such as the one standing in my name which calls upon the Government to resign, and that those Motions cannot be discussed on the Motion for the Adjournment, will the right hon. Gentleman see that the Adjournment Motion is taken off before five o'clock, so that we can vote on it and in that way get the sense of the House?
§ Mr. SPEAKERVote on what?
§ Mr. HOGGE"That this House do not adjourn." If we can vote on the point that the House do not adjourn, that will enable those of us who disapprove of the methods adopted to express our dissatisfaction as to the line that has been taken in the discussion.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe usual way of showing dissatisfaction with the Government is to move to adjourn.
§ Mr. HOGGEThe Motion is, "That this House do now adjourn." Those of us who 2307 are opposed to the Government must obviously vote that the House do not adjourn, and we must continue discussion until we get satisfactory assurances.
§ General Sir IVOR PHILIPPSIn view of what you have said, Mr. Speaker, if we pass this Motion it is a Motion of want of confidence in the Government moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
§ Sir J. D. REESI also have a Notice on the Paper. Is it the intention of the Government at any time to ask the House whether it accepts generally the findings of the Commission? Is not that the first step necessary before deciding what to do next?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI do not think it is at all a necessary step. As regards what has been said by my hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge), I do not know any form of Motion which would enable him to bring in his view that the Government should resign, except a vote of no confidence.
§ Mr. BILLINGIn view of the statement by the right hon. Gentleman that he can always tell the general sense of the House without going into the Lobby, is he aware that this country is represented in this House to-day by a minority, and that the present method of taking the sense of the House, made by a noisy approval or noisy disapproval, is not sufficient?
§ Sir J. JARDINEMay I ask the Leader of the House whether he will give some indication as to what the proposal of the Government is as regards the tribunal, its powers and the civilian persons who are likely to be brought before it.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThose are all matters for discussion and debate.
§ Mr. MOLTENOI desire to ask a question relating to the Orders of the Day. It has reference to the language of the Foreign Secretary in the course of yesterday's Debate. The Foreign Secretary used language of a very strong character, to which I will refer more particularly. What I ask now is: whether the Commission which was appointed by this House, the name of every member of which was submitted to this House, is not entitled to the support of this House, having carried out duties of a very burdensome, arduous and disagreeable nature, and to be sheltered from attacks of the kind to which I will refer in a moment, unless it 2308 were shown it had seriously neglected its duty, or not discharged it, or done some act which was perfectly clearly a neglect of its duty?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat is all a matter for debate.
§ Mr. MOLTENOI wish to put this question.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member should have raised his point at the time. I understand that he takes exception to certain words. He ought to have raised his point when the words were used.
§ Mr. MOLTENOI was not able exactly to follow the words then, but I have endeavoured to raise the matter on the first occasion after I had an authoritative report.
§ Mr. SPEAKERPoints of that sort must be taken at the time.
§ Mr. BILLINGI wish to ask, Sir, whether you propose to make any alteration in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Debates at column 1706, in which it is said that the Motion for Adjournment was talked out, when the fact was that I was counted out by the Member for county Cork while addressing the House on the question of air warnings and defence, and whether you will see that it is duly recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT that I was counted out on that occasion.
§ Mr. SPEAKERSo far as my recollection goes, I think that it was properly reported that the Motion was talked out, and that subsequently the hon. Member was counted out. I do not think that the hon. Member's name appears.
§ Mr. BILLINGIn view of the fact that it was omitted that I was counted out, would you see that it appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member would probably prefer that it should not appear.
§ Mr. BILLINGNo. May I assure you, on a point of Order, that I am most anxious that the attitude of this House towards myself should be reported?
§ Mr. JOHN O'CONNORI desire to ask the Leader of the House a question with regard to the Corn Production Bill. I do not know whether he has made any statement as to future business. I think that something was said yesterday about 2309 the business for next week. I desire to know what the Government seriously intend about the Corn Production Bill? Do they mean to pass it or to adjourn it? Many of us have assured our constituents that the Bill would become law before the Autumn Recess. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a strong rumour about the House that it is not the intention of the Government to put the Bill through?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI really cannot be held responsible for rumours. I said yesterday, and I repeat now, that it is the intention of the Government to carry through this Bill. We regard it as a vital portion of our policy to which we intend to adhere. Whether or not it will be completed before the Adjournment is another matter; that all depends upon the convenience of the House as a whole.
§ Mr. O'CONNORIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that that opens up a very serious question—the question of wages—and if that part of the Bill which deals with wages of agricultural labourers and the price of the produce is not passed before the Autumn Session, how is the Bill to be any good this year?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI am quite aware of the circumstances, but hon. Members will recognise that there is another aspect. I do not think that it would be possible for the House to go on sitting indefinitely after the strain to which it has been exposed. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall make it perfectly plain that the life of the Government depends on passing this Bill.
§ Major HUNTIf the Government are short of time, could they not leave the Franchise Bill alone?