HC Deb 13 May 1932 vol 265 cc2383-400
Mr. McGOVERN

I wish to raise a question about which I have given notice to the Secretary of State for the Dominions. It is in connection with a petition that I recently presented to the House from 50,000 migrants who are stranded and are in a state of poverty and destitution in our Dominions. I am rather loth to raise the matter at this hour, because, if there is anything to regret, it is to speak in an atmosphere where one feels one is only being tolerated. After last night's happenings we might have expected a poor attendance to-day. I have sought to arouse interest among hon. Members in a large section of the community who went out to our Dominions with the hope and desire to assist in the building up of a civilised community at the other end of the earth. They were sent out there by an agreement drawn up on 8th April, 1925, between the Secretary of State of the Home Government and the Commonwealth of Australia under the Empire Settlement of 1922. That scheme induced a large number of people to go to Australia in the hope and belief that employment was to be found of a remunerative character and that they would be able to build up new homes and settle in a new environment which would be happy and comfortable for themselves and their families. They believed it would open up great opportunities for their children.

I am not going to say that the whole of the trouble is attributable to the Governments concerned, because a tremendous unemployment problem has developed throughout the world, but I condemn both the Home Government and the Australian States for encouraging migrants to go out when it was evident to them that there was no employment to be found and that they were going to be landed in a very serious mess. I was in Australia in 1923 and 1924, and at that time unemployment was developing at a tremendous rate. I discovered that people I met on the boat were sent into employment which was nothing but slavery which no Australian would engage in. There were others for whom there was no employment. The agreement said that assisted migrants would be found suitable employment, with the words "suitable employment" underlined, at the same rate of wages as Australians of similar experience. That is undertaking to find these people employment and, if employment cannot be found, the Government of this country and the National Government and the State Governments of Australia have each in their turn responsibility for the large number of people who are stranded on those shores. The Home Government undertook to provide money. To every selected emigrant who was going to be put on the land they guaranteed up to £100, and they were to contribute £7,083,000 towards the assistance of these people.

It is a horrible thing to be suffering from poverty, but it is a greater tragedy when suffering from poverty to feel in a lonely and unfriendly atmosphere. I touched every town along the coast from Melbourne to the North of Queensland and there was antagonism for these people who were coming out. It may be natural, because, if there is unemployment and a struggle for jobs, with boatloads of people coming in, there is a danger of them squeezing out the Australians and seizing their occupation. That developed an unfriendly atmosphere in every State in Australia. I do not know why they were more friendly towards the Scotch and Irish but they were certainly extremely antagonistic to the English miners who went there. The people there are living almost in a state of destitution. I do not want to haggle with the Secretary of State as to whether every statement in the petition that was presented here is absolutely watertight and 100 per cent. true, but probably it could be justified and could be vouched for. Cuttings I have from Australian papers give statement after statement by responsible men and women of the horror and tragedy that these people are enduring.

I am not going to have it said that this is in any sense political. I do not raise this because I belong to the Clyde group or because I am a Socialist, but from the point of view of pure humanitarian outlook to see if there is going to be any hope for people who are suffering from distress and loneliness away out in the wilderness. I do not want to encourage false hopes in the minds of these people. I do not want them to go on believing that something is going to be done if it cannot be remedied. I do not want to extract vague or indefinite promises from the Secretary of State that he feels he could give on behalf of his Government. I want the cold facts to be stated here, and I want to try to get satisfaction for these people, but I do not want to raise hopes in their breasts and hearts when there is no chance of carrying out our obligations. Here is a report of the Children's Welfare and Public Belief Fund for last year which stated that there was growing evidence in the States in Australia that there was an increase in the number of people who were being treated for relief and that there was an increase in South Australia in that year of 12,933 people who had been treated. A total of 43,617 had been treated for the year from June, 1929, to June, 1930.

3.0 p.m.

The facts cannot be disputed. The number has been mounting steadily during the time when we have been pouring into the country a large number of migrants. We have been throwing people from this country into Australia in the hope that their labour would foe absorbed. I do not wish to condemn Australia. Australia is a very fine country when prosperous times are the order of the day. There is a splendid opportunity for development in every one of the states if employment could be found. The towns are full of healthy young people who are full of life and are fine types of humanity. I saw evidence of it. On the other hand, there are human beings herded together in camps, in tents and huts, adjacent to the towns in Australia. They are the unfortunate migrants. They are paid, we are told, the same rate of relief as that which is paid to the Australians, and there is no differentiation. I accept the statement which was made by the Secretary of State for the Dominions, but I would point out that the Australian who is in an insurable occupation receives a much higher rate under his insurance scheme. The man who has been in Australia for a considerable period is in an environment of friends. Ho has around him people who have grown up with him, and if there are any advantages to be obtained, naturally he gets them.

But there is the other poor fellow who has arrived on the scene with his family. He cannot continue to rent a house. In the collection of statements before me I have discovered photographs of these people being evicted from their homes because of unemployment. Most of the people in Australia have developed the habit of buying their houses by instalments, but those who rent houses have to pay a rent of anything from £l to 356. a week. Therefore, if the people become unemployed and cannot occupy an ordinary dwelling house they have to go out with their families into the camps or other insanitary dwellings. These people make their appeal locally, to the State Governments, to the Federal Government, and to the home Government, and each authority in turn only says: "You will have to wait until prosperous times come." I could accept a waiting policy if those people were being dealt with in the meantime in a human fashion. They get relief, in money and kind, at the rate of 5s. per week for an adult, 8s. 6d. for a man and his wife, and 1s. 6d. for a child. They have to exist on sums of that description. If an individual cannot maintain himself in this country on 15s. 3d. a week—and he cannot—how, with the high prices operating in Australia, can those individuals exist in a decent manner? They are stranded, and we want to know whether anything is to be done about it.

Here is your agreement promising to find them employment. I know that there are three classes of emigrants. There are those who were sent out under schemes, and had the whole of their passage money paid. Another section went out under a scheme of assisted passages, and employment had be guaranteed by their friends; and there were those who paid the whole of their fares, and took the risk. Those people who paid their passages, and those who went out under the scheme of assisted passages were given literature. During the time that unemployment was on the increase, and when every city in Australia had its large army of unemployed for which no employment could be found, literature was being sent out pointing out the prospects and opportunities in Australia, especially opportunities for women. We subsequently discovered that women were stranded in the towns, and even if they could get their friends in this country to put up sufficient money to bring them back, they were prevented from coming back unless they signed an agreement promising to repay the money expended in taking them out to Australia.

I brought the case of a boy, whose parents live in my Division, to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman. The boy's parents, who are poor people, raised money from friends and £40 was paid over in order to bring the boy home, because he was tramping workless from district to district in Australia. I asked the right hon. Gentleman to try to trace the boy, because of the anxiety of his broken-hearted parents. The right hon. Gentleman did his best, and finally traced the boy and sent me the information. Since the campaign was started to try to raise something like enthusiasm among Members of this House in favour of some kind of relief, I have received a large number of letters from old people regarding their sons and daughters, and from women concerning the plight of their husbands. I have been deluged with letters of this kind, many of which would cause tears to flow from the heart of a stone. These letters show how these people are tramping the towns, some with no boots, and others who have had to tie sackcloth round their feet as they tramp from town to town.

We are told that nothing can be done and that the Home Government have no responsibility. The House should take the question seriously, because it concerns our own kith and kin. They are some of the very best people of this country. They include men and women who have said, "I will try America, or Canada, or Australia rather than sink into poverty and the gutter in this country." They have been prepared to strike out anywhere in order to find new life, new hope and an opportunity to build up a decent life. Many of those people are ex-service men who fought for this country during its hour of trial. They say. "We are stranded out here. We have been deserted by the people of this country. We are in an unfriendly environment, and the people at home do not hear our appeal." They look for someone to raise the question. I would not have minded whoever had raised the question. I raise it as a matter of common decency and duty to people who belong to this country and to whom justice should be done. What are these people compelled to do? If you get cuttings from the Australian capitalist papers—not Labour papers—they tell you of men smashing windows, stealing, stowing away, committing crimes in the hope that they will be deported, and striking out in every way in an attempt to force the authorities to deal with them.

God never created mankind to be treated in that way in any part of the world, and I cannot believe that any human being should be treated in that way. I would not like to see sisters, brothers or parents of mine treated in that way, and I like to extend the same decency of treatment to every other human being.

The House has a right to face up to this problem. I have consulted privately with the right hon. Gentleman and he has told me that he is making inquiries. I know that he has certain difficulties to face. Is it not possible for some form of inquiry to take place, because one gets no satisfaction when the Government is presented with statements made by migrants on the spot who are banded together in an association and know what they are suffering. We get the cold statement of officialdom from the various States that: "These statements are exaggerated." One of the strongest statements made was that young women were being driven on to the streets, because of lack of employment. Is there anything unreal or outrageous in a statement or assumption of that character, when they are not given a decent allowance? I could give instances from the Australian States of suicide after suicide by migrants. During the period that I was in Australia there was an outcry about the number of young boys who had been committing suicide. They were driven to it in consequence of their position of despair.

I could go into details of a large number of questions affecting the lives of these people, but I content myself more by the general aspect and in saying that these are human beings with whom we made agreements. I do not care who is responsible. The fact remains that Governments made agreements with them. We had no employment for them here and we thought that there were better opportunities out there. Therefore, we transferred them to Australia and when they got there they discovered that the conditions were a great deal worse than here. They say to us: "You cannot find us employment, although you made agreements to find us employment. Therefore, if you cannot find us employment are you going to return us to our homes"? I do not think that it would be practicable to return all of them to this country. A large number of them would not desire to come back, if they had decent treatment and some opportunity of development in that country.

Is the Secretary of State for the Dominions prepared to secure earnest consideration of this question by the Government of this country, and to raise it at the Cabinet, so that we may know what is going to be done in the matter? We cannot go on month after month while these people are suffering from poverty and hardship, while women are being practically driven on to the streets, while young men are being driven to suicide and while mothers are driven to distraction and despair because of the conditions under which they are compelled to exist. These people are British subjects and they appeal to the British Government to do something for them. We assisted, in co-operation with other Governments, in landing them into that sorry mess, and it is our duty to relieve them, jointly, or to bring them back to their homes and their native land.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL

I should like to reinforce the very sympathetic and graphic description of the conditions in Australia given by my hon. Friend. He has conferred a benefit upon the House in drawing attention to the matter, because we note the omission from the Press of this country of adequate statements of the hardship of the lot that has to be undergone by the people who are in this condition in Australia. These people went out there with the assistance and the connivance of the Government in this country and the connivance of this House, which at that time this House was very enthusiastic in support of migration schemes. When I was in one of our Dominions I was fortunate enough to have regular employment, but the people who were not so fortunate had a very hard time. I have been kept in touch with the conditions which prevail by regular correspondence with old friends of mine who, in addition to sending me their own observations, have included cuttings from the Canadian and Australian papers which confirm the story of the plight of these people.

The right hon. Gentleman received a deputation this week and gave us an assurance that he would go into the matter personally. He will have an opportunity of investigating the subject when he goes to Ottawa. If he will pay a visit to Montreal, and to other centres in Eastern Canada, he will find people living under most deplorable conditions. The emigrants to Australia went out under special conditions, and it is interesting to notice that in the report of the Committee on Empire Migration, which I think was set up by the right horn. Gentleman himself, and which was signed as far back as last July, that is before the economic depression had struck Australia, one of the committee, Mr. G. D. H. Cole, a man of balanced judgment and a knowledge of economic details, said: I believe that in times when the Dominions offer real opportunities for an increased number of settlers, the amount of migration could be increased if those who are encouraged to migrate were assured that they would have a reasonable chance of being able to return to Great Britain. I do not suggest that this opportunity should be afforded until the emigrant has spent long enough overseas fairly to test his suitability for Dominion life, or that it should remain open indefinitely. But I do suggest that at any time, not less than two years and not more than five years after the migrant's departure he should be entitled to a return fare at a specially reduced rate. I recognise that any provision of this sort would have to be carefully drafted, and, subject to special safeguards against abuse; but I attach great importance to removing from the potential migrants' mind the fear of being marooned in a distant country; and I accordingly recommend that a provision for cheap return fares should be included in schemes of assisted migration. Many of these migrants are marooned in distant countries and are in a position of special difficulty. I know that in Canada in periods of unemployment the native born Canadian gets the first opportunity of work, and emigrants from the old country have to wait until everybody else has been served. In addition, a flat rate of relief is given, but the native-born Australian probably lives in his own house or with his friends, and possibly has some little savings. In the case of the emigrant he has had no time in which to build up any reserves and is, therefore, absolutely penniless.

I ask the Minister to give his personal attention to the matter when he goes to Canada. I trust him to do so because I know him to be sympathetic and to have a keen interest in the conditions in those centres where the migrants are gathered. As to Australia I ask him not only to make inquiries, but to see that someone representing this country shall convince the migrants that they have the sympathy of this country, and that they shall be convinced that they will be maintained physically as comfortably as possible in their time of distress.

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas)

I do not think that either of my hon. Friends needs to apologise for raising this question. However many letters they or other Members of the House have received in connection with this unfortunate difficulty, they may take my assurance that I have received many more. I have received letters not only from strangers but from my own people. Therefore I am fully conscious not only of the difficulties and the hardships of these people, but of the natural and human desire of anyone in this country to have regard to the sufferings of their own kith and kin overseas. Instead of complaining of the hon. Members' statements, I say clearly and honestly that in raising this issue they are only doing their duty and rendering a public service. But, having said that, I would add that we must not, even in our anxiety to help in these unfortunate difficulties, lose sight of the fundamental facts of the situation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) read an extract from Mr. G. D. H. Cole's minority report. That report sounds very well read now. It sounds excellent as a sort of humane effort to deal with this problem. But let us get down to brass tacks. Would the Labour party, would the trade union movement, would those in this country who are specially charged with the interests and the protection of the working masses of this country, in their heart of hearts like to see that remedy applied?

Mr. GRENFELL

I quoted the report to show that Mr. Cole in his examination of the problem recognised that there was a possibility of the breakdown of the arrangements and that it might he necessary to bring some people home.

Mr. THOMAS

I know Mr. Cole's views, but the logic of his suggestion is this. Not ten, not one hundred, but probably 100,000 people, under the conditions that he laid down, are to have their passage paid home at the expense of the Government. The cost of the passage home would be very heavy, but it would be infinitesimal compared with the crimp of bringing them home to something worse, and the consequent effect upon our own employment market. That is the difficulty of the situation. I do not hesitate to tell the House that I am not satisfied with some of the things which I have heard. The House may take it from me that, when I was told that a differentia-lion was being made between migrants and the native-born I took the matter up at once. My hon. Friends opposite know that in connection with the deputation which met me earlier in the week I dealt very fully with that point. Although not accepting responsibility, either for bringing them home or anything else, any Government would have no right to stand by and see migrants who have left this country treated differently from those who are native-born when periods of distress arise. I spoke to Mr. Hogan, one of the Australian Prime Ministers, who is here at present, and I have also spoken to Mr. Latham. I have inquired into this matter in the most minute way, and I can assure the House that the evidence which I have received on this point is that there is no differentiation between the native-born and the others. If there is any evidence to show that there is such differentiation, I certainly will investigate it.

I now turn to the remarks of the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern). His charge, in short, was that the Government were not only responsible but were encouragnig what is called the White slave traffic. A member of the Council of the Society for Overseas Settlement of British Woman, who has just returned, was asked herself on this matter. May I say here that, no matter what my constitutional rights in regard to this question may be, I have no hesitation in saying that if it was brought to my notice that British girls in any of our Dominions were being brought into the white slave traffic, I would ignore the constitutional position altogether. I would feel a moral obligation and I would feel that I was only doing right in having the matter probed to the bottom. Therefore when that statement is made, as it has been made—indeed reference was made to it in connection with the deputation to which I have referred—I at once, without looking at what my rights were, had the statement examined, and I assure the House and beg them to believe that from all the investigations which I have been able to make there is no vestige of truth in that statement.

I am entitled to say that for another reason. It is not only a question of assuring this House. After all, those of us who are husbands and fathers know our responsibility to our families in this matter. I am not, therefore thinking so much of the House, as of the feelings of my wife or someone else's wife if they had sisters or daughters out there and if this statement went unchallenged. I am anxious to reassure them. I do not want them to feel that there is any truth in such a statement and that is why I am so emphatic in my assertion. I venture to say that of the letters received by my hon. Friends opposite and to which they have referred, nine-tenths are not from the poor victims in any of our Dominions but from parents or relatives here. Does not that in itself show that natural human anxiety of these parents and relatives? We have to think of them and give them some reassurance because we realise how they feel in this matter.

I listened with great interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston, when he said that from his experience of Australia it was a fine country. So is Scotland. I only know one finer country, and that is Wales. But is there anyone to-day who would get up and say, "I knew that this world difficulty was coming; I knew absolutely that there was going to be a world collapse; I know that the price of wool or of wheat was bound to go to the ridiculous figure at which it stands and that all these miseries would occur"? If there are any, they are neither responsible statesmen nor responsible politicians. There are many in this House, I know, who would get up and say, "I told you long ago that this sort of thing will last as long as the capitalist system lasts," but that is not the point with which I am now dealing. I am dealing with the cold, hard fact that it does exist and that these unfortunate circumstances are to be found in all our Dominions, due to this economic position.

May I remind the House, and especially the country, what a bearing this problem has on the general economic position of this country? We are talking at the moment about the unemployed in our Dominions, Let us keep in mind for a moment the 2,500,000 unemployed in this country. When I tell the House that, covering the period since the war, the average migrants were in the region of 150,000 year after year, and that for the first time in our history there are more returned to this country than have left, that in itself throws some light on our economic position in this country. The moral that I draw from it is this, that I cannot conceive that the problem of migration in its big sense, in its broad outlook, can escape our attention at Ottawa. It cannot possibly do it, because everything that is on the agenda, everything that must be discussed, in the very nature of things, must be associated with the economic position that unemployment creates in those Dominions as well as here. It is because I realise now, and have always realised, the tremendous connection between our own unemployment problem and migration that I attach great importance to our forthcoming deliberations to do something that will increase the prosperity of all our Dominions. That will be the best solution of the problem that we are here discussing, as well as of our own domestic difficulties.

3.30 p.m.

Nothing was more true in the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston than that when we are dealing with these people we are not dealing with loafers and unemployables, but with the very best that this country can produce. The men and women who, rather than risk unemployment in this country, not in recent years alone, but during the history of our race, and who were prepared to take risks and to make good, are the foundation of every Dominion which is associated with us to-day. Rather than deprecate or minimise the importance of dealing with these people, I would stress that we must keep them in mind. They have taken risks because they are the best of our blood, and are only maintaining the tradition of those who were the foundation of the British Commonwealth of Nations. It may surprise my hon. Friend to know that from 1922 to 1931, 66 per cent. of those who migrated from this country to Australia went on the nomination or the recommendation or the assistance of their own relatives and friends in Australia. When I give that figure, I am dealing with hundreds of thousands. That is a magnificent tribute to our Dominions, because the moral of it is that the migrants' own flesh and blood, their own brothers and sisters, their own relatives who had gone out there and tested it, and knew exactly what the situation was, were so satisfied that they were prepared to take the risk of advising and even financing their own friends to go out there to the new life in this new land. We must commend the spirit and the initiative of these people. Does it not show that the relatives who encourage their friends to go to a dominion must have been satisfied with the prospects?

I do not disguise from the House the fact that in Canada and Australia there are large numbers of our people in dire distress because of unemployment and through circumstances over which they have no control. My evidence goes to show that there are none of our Dominions which are in any way attempting to escape from their responsibilities to help. There may be arguments as to what is the proper amount and whether the assistance should be of one kind or another, but in the main the House can rest assured that there is a real attempt under very difficult circumstances on the part of the Dominions to try and help all those who are in distress. If the House does not feel assured that in this relief, there is no discrimination between native born and migrants, I have promised that I will have investigations made as far as I can. Indeed, I am having them made already. I beg the House to take a big view of this question. We have reports of white slave traffic and other horrors, which are magnified—

Mr. McGOVERN

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member but the petition simply alleged that as a result of the position in which those girls found themselves many of them were being driven to the streets. Might I give a few words from Lady Melrose Coombe, whose husband is the President of the Boy Scouts Association of Western Australia? She arrived in this country on a holiday, and she said: It is wicked to send girls out there, domestic service is so bad. There is no scheme of employment for these girls. There are thousands of English girls stranded over there. I blame the organisations on this side because of the rosy pictures they have been painting of the chances for these girls, which are not there. The girls go over and find there is no work for them. Their fate is obvious.

Mr. THOMAS

My hon. Friend and I have been associated with one movement for a long number of years, and when we have dealt with the economic position of poorer sections of the community the moral we have drawn is this: if the economic position of the woman is so bad that she is deprived of the necessities of life, her downfall comes about not because she is low morally but is due to economic circumstances. Although I am on this side of the House and my hon. Friends are on that side I think that will be accepted as being a view mutually held by us. But the petition says, and the charge is, that there is encouragement of white slave traffic, not on the presumption that I have laid down—or the logic—but on account of indifference and a callous indisposition to face the facts. That is an entirely different thing, and it is that side of the question with which I am dealing.

I conclude by giving an assurance to the House that I am fully conscious of these unfortunate happenings. I know very well that there are hardships, and I will do all I can to minimise them, and to make the position better, but neither the House nor the country must assume for one moment that this Government can agree to the claim, often made, that we must be responsible for bringing those people back to this country or must be responsible for them while they are in the Dominions. No; we cannot accept that responsibility. But I would repeat that if anything we can do at Ottawa will so restore the economic prosperity of the Dominions that it will not only be reflected in an improvement in our economic position at home but will contribute towards restoring and helping the unfortunate victims in the dominions, then I, at least, will not look upon the Ottawa Conference as a failure.

Mr. HALES

We have all been profoundly moved by these tales of distress of our kinsmen oversea, and I ask the House, in the same atmosphere of sympathy, to listen to a matter which I wish to bring before it and which on several previous occasions has been briefly mentioned. It is an urgent and grave matter and affects many industrial concerns in the Midlands and other parts of the country. I would especially ask the consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Board of Trade to this matter, which is one in which they can do a great deal to help. The Tariff Advisory Committee are now dealing with the question of duties, and have, in many cases, reduced them from 50 to 20 per cent. That has caused consternation and dismay in the pottery industry in the North Staffordshire district. When the Import Duties of 50 per cent. were put on, a new spirit of hope and confidence was engendered, and there was an immediate repercussion which enabled factories which were closing down to remain open, new machinery to be fitted, and additional men, women and girls to be engaged. Like a bolt from the blue came the reduction from 50 to 20 per cent., and if hon. Members had been with me during the last three days when I visited these factories, they would have seen the conditions existing there. The Advisory Committee should not hesitate one moment before restoring those cuts, and placing this industry again on a paying basis.

I do not approach this case with any hostility to the Advisory Committee, which has been given a task that is almost superhuman. It is impossible for any man to understand the intricacies and details of so many industries. What I would have thought to be easy was for the Advisory Committee to have allowed the 50 per cent. to remain until there had been time for full consideration of the position and then, if necessary, for the reduction to take place. I will put this point to the House: What is the need for any reduction in the duty in an industry which does not need any foreign goods? What is the motive in making any reduction? We can make sufficient pottery in our country without a pennyworth being brought from overseas. I say that if the idea of the reduction is to get revenue from the importation of pottery, it is Revenue dearly bought, and totally un-neceseary. Far better for to have a prosperous industry, with manufacturers and operatives in a good postion and enabled to pay their way, and to receive the Income Tax in due course. Now the Advisory Committee has cut the ground from underneath them. Manufacturers, to-day have the receivers in, and manufacturers whose names are world-renowned are wondering what the future will bring forth.

Mr. SPEAKER

I do not know whether the hon. Member is attaching his remarks to any particular Minister, but if he has not given notice to that Minister of his intention to raise that matter, I fail to see how he is likely to get satisfaction to-day.

Mr. HALES

My words will no doubt filter through the necessary channels and will have effect, even though those immediatly concerned are not here.

Mr. SPEAKER

I think the hon. Gentleman is recommending some form of legislation. That would not be in order to-day.

Mr. HALES

I am quite aware of the difficulties, but I would ask your indulgence Mr. Speaker, in a matter which is of vital importance to my constituents.

Mr. SPEAKER

If that matter needs legislation then, as I have said, it is not in order to raise on the Adjournment questions that need legislation.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at a Quarter before Four o'Clock until Monday, 23rd May, pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day.