GOVERNMENT BUSINESS. (Hansard, 9 March 1920)

§ Mr. RENDALL
I am the first private Member whose Motion will fall under the guillotine presented by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). I am quite aware that the House approved this proposal yesterday and that a Committee was formed in order to carry it out, and also that the House is going to confirm it. I have had every sympathy extended to me in reference to my Resolution (calling for legislative effect to be given to the recommendations of the Majority Report of the Royal Commission on Divorce), which had been put down for to-night and was generally expected to be discussed to-night, but which will now be postponed. I am sure I shall get a place later, and I understand it will be on Wednesday, April 13th, the day after the House resumes, which is not a very good Parliamentary day. I am rather surprised at the action of my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London, whom we have always regarded as a jealous guardian of the liberties of private Members, but who at 12 hours' notice has done me down. I think he might have let me know a little earlier that he was going to do it.

§ Mr. G. TERRELL
Of course, I am very glad that a new policy has been adopted by the Government of consulting private Members, and, as in the present case, of coming to an agreement, but I imagine that insufficient attention has been paid to the Motions which are excluded, and particularly to the Motion which stands in my name for to-morrow night. This Motion has to deal with the congestion at the docks and the consequent inflation of prices. Therefore, I think it is a matter that requires the immediate consideration of the House, because the one great grievance to-day is the high price of living, and we had the announcement yesterday from the Prime Minister that the price of flour was to be increased.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The hon. Member is not entitled to indicate the lines of a speech which he intends to make on a future Motion.

§ Mr. TERRELL
No, that was not my intention at all. My object was to show to the House the importance and the urgency of the Motion which stands in my name. To do that it is really necessary to refer to other matters which have happened within the last few hours which had an important bearing upon it. The object of the Motion in my name was to show that by alleviating congestion at the docks food prices could be reduced. Instead of the reduction of prices, you are going to have an inflation.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
That would be violating the rule I have just laid down.

§ Mr. TERRELL
If I may, I should like to make an appeal to the Leader of the House that, instead of excluding my Motion to-morrow, it should be allowed to stand. This is, as I have already stated, a matter of considerable urgency. The facts, in a disjointed form, have been before the House, and I submit that an opportunity should be given so that they may be debated, and, if necessary, some steps taken towards reducing food prices.

§ Mr. BONAR LAW
I am sure that it was a satisfaction to the House that both hon. Members, who have expressed natural human feelings, are pleased with the decision to which the House has come; but, obviously, that does preclude the course which my hon. Friend has suggested. I would remind him that to-day, as I hope, there will be an opportunity of discussing the Transport Vote, and I think it will be competent for him to get part of his speech in on that Vote. I may say, further, that if my hon. Friend has any suggestion which will help the congestion at the docks, I am sure the Minister of Transport will be delighted to hear from him.

Mr. DOYLE
May I ask, in view of what has been said, and in view of the fact that I have just been successful in the Ballot, whether I shall have the opportunity of moving my Motion on this day fortnight?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
If hon. Members who have precedence are not in their places when their Motions are called upon, the hon. Member will probably get his opportunity.