§ The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden)
I beg to move,That this House, at its rising Tomorrow, do adjourn till Tuesday, 26th September.The House was informed on Thursday, 20th July, of our proposal for the Summer Adjournment. It is a normal proposal, and, as the House is aware, provision already exists for Parliament to be recalled at very short notice, if the public interest so requires. I have already warned the House that it may be necessary for us to meet before the date to which we propose to adjourn, and I must now repeat that warning. Hon. Members will, I am sure, hold themselves in readiness to return to Westminster should this become necessary.
§ Mr. Arthur Greenwood (Wakefield)
My right hon. Friend has warned the House, quite properly, that we may have to reassemble before the date suggested in his Motion. We are living in very stirring and very difficult times, and it may well be that, long before the date suggested, we may have to come together again. I would hope that the House will accept the Motion of the Government. It is the normal custom of the House to rise for a period at this time of the year, and this has nothing to do with "doodle-bugs." [HON. MEMBERS: "Nobody said it had."] It is, I say, the normal practice. Members of this House have public responsibilities outside this House to which they really must attend and in view of my right hon. Friend's repeated assurance that the Standing Orders we have now got enable the House to reassemble should the situation require it, I hope that the House will accept the Motion. I would put this point to my right hon. Friend, and I am sure he will give an affirmative answer. If, during the Recess, there is from any responsible quarter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Such as?"]—I am making my own suggestion; I am one of the responsible quarters, I hope. If, I say, there is expressed from any responsible quarter, a feeling that the House should reassemble, I hope the Government will give such representations careful consideration and, on that understanding, I hope the House will speedily pass the Motion.
§ Mr. Shinwell (Seaham)
I beg to move, to leave out "26th September," and to add instead thereof "29th August."
1422 My Amendment, if accepted, would mean that hon. Members would have rather more than three weeks' vacation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Recess."] Well, holiday, Recess or whatever hon. Members like to call it. I was about to observe that I gather from certain conversations that, in certain quarters, this Amendment has aroused some discussion. Members seem to be afraid that they are about to be deprived of absence from their Parliamentary duties. I shall not use the term "holiday," because the assumption is that Members, in fact, do not go on holiday but use the Parliamentary Recess for the purpose of meeting their constituents—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—a fiction that up to now should, among honest men, be abandoned. Of course Members, taking them by and large, avail themselves of the Parliamentary Recess to pay visits to their constituencies—[An HON. MEMBER: "Some of us live there"]—and do so also at odd times, entirely apart from the Parliamentary Recess. But it must not be assumed that Members are straining at the leash to visit their constituencies during the Parliamentary Recess. Let me make this clear beyond any possible doubt, and I hope that the House will accept what I am now about to say as an expression of sincere feeling. The last thing I desired to do in promoting this Amendment was to stand between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the House.
§ Mr. Shinwell
I will repeat an expression I have just overheard. An hon. Member has just said to me "Sit down." There is a Motion before the House, and let me point out to that hon. Member and to all hon. Members, that I am addressing myself to hon. Members in the correct Parliamentary fashion. This is a regular procedure, to which the House is well accustomed. There is precedent for it. Moreover, there is precedent for the acceptance of my Amendment by the Government, for on 18th December, 1941, during a critical period—no more critical than these times—the Government accepted from my hands, an Amendment to their Motion for a somewhat prolonged Adjournment, and that Adjournment was curtailed by unanimous consent. It was the Deputy Prime Minister who then 1423 spoke on behalf of the Government. I am well within the recollection of the House in that respect. So that there is precedent for this course; it is the correct Parliamentary form and no hon. Member has a right to complain.
§ Sir Irving Albery (Gravesend)
On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Would it not be still more correct Parliamentary form, if the hon. Gentleman would address the Chair?
§ Mr. Shinwell
I beg hon. Members to understand that I am not responsible for this Debate. If hon. Members will persist in interrupting, I have to change my physical position to answer them and you will understand, Sir, that, if I turned from the Chair, it was not because of any disrespect for yourself. I was about to observe that we are all anxious to hear the important pronouncement from the Prime Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I accept that unanimous approval. It is precisely because the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, according to the intelligent anticipation of our national newspapers, which, as everybody knows, are organs of unimpeachable veracity, is going to inform us on exceedingly important matters——
§ The Prime Minister indicated dissent.
§ Mr. Shinwell
My right hon. Friend dissents. That is a matter about which we may concern ourselves later. But, in fact, there are important considerations, not only affecting hon. Members, but concerning the state of the war, and the future of this country. We had an example of it only to-day in the course of Questions, when my right hon. Friend the Deputy-Prime Minister was asked about the decision of the Government on the Royal Commission to deal with Equal Pay. I wonder whether hon. Members are aware that it is more than three months now since the Government promised to set up that Commission and to announce the personnel who were to deal with this matter of widespread interest. Yet we are to depart from this Assembly for a matter of seven weeks, during which period no questions can be asked—there can be no interrogation, there can be no answers, however unsatisfactory we may regard the position—and in the meantime this Commission is in the air. Its per- 1424 sonnel has not been announced. That is only one example. Yesterday, there was a Debate on a Bill dealing with temporary housing. There was dissatisfaction right throughout the House, and because of certain delays, due to a lapse on the part of one right hon. Gentleman—of which he was duly acquitted, having been humbly penitent, as the circumstances demanded—my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House gave way and agreed that we should not proceed with Second Reading of the Bill until after the Recess. But the matter is in suspense, and this question of housing, particularly the question of temporary houses, concerns hon. Members. It also concerns the country at large. When is this Second Reading to eventuate? It will not be within the next seven or eight weeks, and then the Bill will have to go through all the various stages to which Bills are subjected.
There are other considerations of an international character. There is the question of what is to be done about the international monetary system, about an international world bank and about an international shipping agreement, which is contemplated by the Government, and upon which I addressed a Question to the appropriate Minister to-day. Knowing something of the subject and of what is going on behind the scenes affecting the shipping and the trade of this country, I consider that I got a most unsatisfactory and evasive reply. All this is going on surreptitiously and in a subterranean fashion behind our backs. Let the Government be more forthcoming about these matters, and then we might be appeased.
§ Mr. Shinwell
My right hon. Friend says that he does not believe in appeasement. One wonders about that. Sometimes questions have been asked, even from this side, on the subject of the suggested appeasement policy of the Government in Italy and elsewhere, but I will not discuss that matter, except to observe——
§ Mr. Shinwell
Exactly, and I do not want to be out of Order. Incidentally, I am very glad to hear the right hon. 1425 Gentleman interrupt me, although I have not tempted him. If I should find myself in the position of being tempted by a strong ebullition of feeling to interrupt him, I hope that he will not resent it. He cannot have it both ways.
Let us come to the question of the actual period of the Recess. I speak, of course, for myself. The Labour Party have decided that they prefer seven weeks' holiday rather than three weeks. I speak for myself; sometimes it is necessary to speak for one's self. It is not always necessary to pay homage to the Government because it is a Coalition. It is a very desirable thing that some Members should express themselves independently. In any event, the question whether the House should go on a seven weeks' or a three weeks' holiday is not a party matter. That has not been laid down by the Labour Party Conference. What is more, in the past, in normal times and even during the war, protests have come from this side about the length of the Parliamentary holiday. [An HON. MEMBER: "And from the Prime Minister."] And others. We are all "in the soup" so far as this is concerned, but I do not want to bring up the past unduly. The question is whether Members can satisfy themselves, appease themselves, by a three weeks' vacation, or whether it is necessary to have seven weeks. The answer of my right hon. Friend beside me and of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House is that, of course, Parliament can be recalled when this country is charged with high events. Naturally the Government would have the opportunity of recalling the House. My answer—and I hope that hon. Members will note it, whether it is satisfactory or not, whether it is agreeable or not—is that the question whether the House should meet is not a matter for the Government but for the House itself, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, as a good, an honest House of Commons man, will sustain me in that observation.
§ Mr. Shinwell
I have a firm grasp of the obvious. It is acceptable. The Prime Minister is in hearty agreement. What I am proposing in my Amendment is that we should decide here and now to return in three weeks, on 29th August. 1426 We might then meet for a week, hear whatever the Prime Minister has to say and ask a question or two, of course, all in the usual Parliamentary form, and so satisfy the country that we are on our toes, that we are watching the Government, and that is very necessary from time to time. We can do all that and then, if we find the situation is cleared, the fog has been lifted and the Prime Minister gives us another heartening speech such as we expect from him to-day—I hope the Prime Minister is not going to disappoint us. Every one of us hopes sincerely that the Prime Minister would then give us a heartening speech, and we could go away for another fortnight or three weeks, and the public would not complain.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. A. Greenwood) said the length of this Recess had nothing to do with "doodle-bugs." One must not speak about personal matters, but I have seen something of this business myself. I dislike it, I have suffered from it, but I fortify myself—and I hope hon. Members will not regard this as mere soft-soap stuff or mere emotion—I fortify myself when I am going through it in London—[An HON. MEMBER: "With what"?] If my hon. Friend will meet me outside afterwards I will give him the recipe. That is a secret. It is not in the public interest to disclose it here. I sustain myself with the fact than when other people are going through it, it is just as well that we should experience what they have suffered, although naturally I dislike it, feel uneasy and apprehensive about it, and wish the whole thing were over. I ask London Members, in view of all that has happened in London, whether they feel disposed to go on vacation. In fact, most of them will remain in London. If that is so, we might as well be here. There is another reason why they should be here. In view of what has happened recently about the doodle-bugs and other things—I did not invent that name, it was my right hon. Friend beside me who tempted me—I say to the Government, whether it is agreeable or not, that their policy on evacuation, their policy as regards certain aspects of national events, transport and the like, and their policy in relation to anti-aircraft defences, are merely a series of improvisations, 1427 largely inspired by Questions in this House.
§ Mr. Shinwell
All I can say is that I have certain information about that, as a result of inquiries, and I am certain that I am right. I am very sorry about it; it would have been better for all of us that the Government should have been fully efficient and ready for everything, and that there should have been no improvisation. At the same time, I recognise that there must be some improvisation, but it is very necessary that the House should be on its toes watching events. Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary spoke about horrible things that were going to happen. I ventured to suggest that he was talking flippantly. He replied that he was only partially flippant, though I do not know what partially flippant may be; but he said there were horrible things in sight. How can this House go away——
§ The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison)
My hon. Friend is misrepresenting me. What I said was that I know about all sorts of horrible things. That is what I actually said.
§ Mr. Shinwell
My right hon. Friend is perfectly right. I said that that remark might be misconstrued and asked him whether he was speaking flippantly [Interruption]. I beg my right hon. Friend to restrain himself. I have a right to say this, and if I am not in Order you, Mr. Speaker, will call my attention to it. I say that in these circumstances we have no right to go away for seven weeks. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House may say "We can call the House together at any time." If he has such anticipations why does he object to adjourning for only three weeks? He does not know when these dire events are going to come upon us, and therefore he cannot say when, and it is to be left to the Government to decide, and, of course, through the usual channels. I would not object if my right hon. Friend would agree to allow a quorum of this House, that is, 40 Members, to decide whether the Government should recall the House. If the Government are not prepared to accept that suggestion then I say that 1428 this Amendment ought to be accepted. I am putting forward this Amendment although I recognise that Members are jaded and require a 'holiday. We are all in that unhappy position. The Government have no right to complain of Members of Parliament taking a holiday, because they advise us to take a holiday, although I know that the Minister of Labour has decided to address the building trade workers of London and tell them to work over the week-end and on bank holiday. But I leave that aside. The public must not imagine that we have no right to a holiday—but not a prolonged holiday at this critical time. I beg to move my Amendment, and I hope the Government, after having heard the Debate, will decide to accept it.
§ Captain Cunningham-Reid (St. Marylebone)
This is a matter that is of the utmost importance to most Members who have constituencies in Southern England, and it is also of extreme concern to practically every back bencher in this House. I think Members have forgotten that it was Mr. Chamberlain who at the beginning of this war asked Private Members whether they would give up many of their privileges in order, as he put it, that the Government could have for war purposes most of the Parliamentary time normally given to Private Members. Circumstances have changed considerably since then. They have changed to the extent that the Government now apparently have so little Parliamentary work to do that they are able to send Members away——
§ Mr. A. Bevan (Ebbw Vale)
On a point of Order. I think the hon. and gallant Member who is addressing the House is entitled to have order, and I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to ask hon. Members to show the ordinary courtesy of this House to an hon. Member, even though he may not be popular in certain circles.
§ Earl Winterton (Horsham and Worthing)
Further to that point of Order. May I call attention to the fact that through no fault of hon. Members, but owing to the acoustics of this Chamber, the habit of hon. Members of collecting below the Bar, and talking at the tops of their voices, makes it extremely difficult for other hon. Members, and for you, Mr. Speaker, to hear the speech? I do not know whether you, Sir, can make any suggestion on the matter.
§ Mr. Speaker
If there is a buzz of conversation beyond the Bar, it makes it very difficult for a Member to make himself heard.
§ Captain Cunningham-Reid
I was drawing attention to what I think the House, if they heard it, will agree is a very important point—that Private Members had their privileges taken away from them for war purposes, but that circumstances have now changed to the extent that the Government have so much Parliamentary time on their hands that they are able to dismiss Parliament for one of the longest periods since the war started. It may be of interest to the House to know the length of the Summer Recesses since the war started. In 1940 we had a Summer Recess of two weeks; in 1941 we had 4½ weeks, in 1942 4¾ weeks, in 1943 6½ weeks and in 1944 we are about to have, apparently, 7½ weeks. I feel the time has come when Private Members should assert their rights and say to the Government, "If now, apparently, you have so much Parliamentary time on your hands that you are able to send us away for so long, then, in fairness, you should return to Private Members all those privileges that have been taken away from them and that take up Parliamentary time." I am referring to the Wednesdays and the Fridays on which Private Members formerly had the chance to bring up matters of their own choosing, the opportunity we used to have of introducing Bills under the Ten Minute Rule, and such like. If the Government do not accede to this request to return Private Members their privileges in the near future, I feel that hon. Members will be entitled to say that it shows quite clearly that the Government have every intention of tricking us out of those privileges and those rights which have been ours from time immemorial.
So much for that. But there is a far more serious aspect to the question that is before the House to-day. We are reaching the climax of the war. Not only London but the whole of Southern England is now in the front line and therefore it is disgraceful that at this time of all times the Government should propose to dismiss the Members of this House for a long period just as if these were the piping days of peace, and to scatter the representatives of the people all over the country. This Motion of the Government makes a mockery of the Prime Minister's 1430 statement made recently on the subject of flying bombs, and I am only sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has had to leave, because I would like to have pointed out to him how he, of all people, should object to this long Recess. He said on that occasion, amid considerable cheers from this House, that the Government were relying on the House of Commons to keep them in close touch with the population affected. How in Heaven's name can we keep the Government in close touch with the population affected by the flying bomb, when the House of Commons will have been dismissed for nearly two months? Even when the House is sitting, every difficulty is put in the way of Private Members bringing up matters concerning the flying bombs, a subject of life and death interest to those who reside in Southern England. From these benches, from time to time, we have asked the Government for an opportunity to debate this matter, but that was resisted, and now we know the reason why it was resisted. The Government realised that if they could fob us off until this long Parliamentary Recess, we would then be muzzled for a matter of two months.
On the particular occasion to which I have made reference, when the Prime Minister had certain statements to make concerning the robot bomb, he went even further than I have already indicated and said:We can with confidence leave our civil organisation to do their work under the watchful supervision of the House of Commons."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1944; Vol. 401; c. 1331.]Such a pronouncement as this has no meaning whatever when, during this vital stage of the war, there is going to be no watchful supervision by the House of Commons. If we went away for one week or 10 days—I can well understand that hon. Members, anyhow those hon. Members who attend this House, have a right to some respite—that would not be so bad, but to go away for a period of seven and a half weeks is completely inexplicable. I know perfectly well that the spokesmen for the Government will be able to explain it in this way, "Well, after all, we have always had a Summer Recess." That may be so, but that is no reason why, at times such as these, we should have such a long Recess. Of course we have always had a Summer Recess, and of course at one time hon. Mem- 1431 bers have always gone off grouse-shooting on the 12th August. But the past should be no precedent for the present.
Further we are going to be told that the House can easily be recalled. That is not the point. We Members who represent constituencies in the South that are being seriously affected by the flying bomb know that our constituents may be concerned about matters from time to time which it is imperative should be brought up on the Floor of the House. We are also well aware from past experience that if you want to get something done, if you want some redress for your constituency, it is as a rule no good making representations to a private Committee or to the Minister concerned. The best way to do it is on the Floor of the House and, if necessary, to make a row. Unless you can get public opinion behind you by making the public aware of what is being said in Parliament, many Ministers take no notice whatsoever of private representations. Apparently, the Prime Minister appreciated this when he said on that same occasion, that everybody must stay at his post and discharge his daily duty, and he assured the nation—and, I suppose, at the same time our enemies—that the House, as a result of the flying bomb, would not leave London. I have no doubt that the bricks and mortar of this House will stay here for the next eight weeks but the inmates, or perhaps I should say the occupants, the supposed civil leaders of the country, are going to leave for the longest period that we have had since the war. What an example to our war workers! What comfort to all those in Southern England who are being menaced by the flying bomb, and, what is more, what an inspiration to the nation as a whole and what laughable satisfaction this is going to give to our enemies!
It was the Prime Minister who said that this House would not leave London during this time of peril, and he went on to say that if we did so, Private Members in this House would be "affronted" at the idea. When it comes to the Division Lobby we shall see how many Private Members are "affronted." I cannot believe that hon. and right hon. Members who represent constituencies in Southern England and whose constituents have been, or are being, maimed and killed by this vile Nazi machine, will go into the Lobby and vote that their constituents 1432 should be separated from the House of Commons and from the representations that their Members can make on their behalf, for the longest period for which this House has been sent away since the war started.
§ Sir Richard Acland (Barnstaple)
I would like to approach this problem rather differently. Looking ahead a little, I really do not think it is possible to rule out the possibility of a pretty rapid collapse of the Nazi military machine. It may not happen, but, on the other hand, it may, and I do think it important for this House to consider whether, as a House of Commons, as a legislative assembly, we are likely to find ourselves in a position to meet that situation if, very happily, it should arise. What I am asking is whether, even if we were recalled, we should be likely to be able to meet the position which would probably arise. I believe I am expressing the views of very large numbers of Members of Parliament in all parts of the House when I say that, if there were to be an early collapse of Germany, it would be a great tragedy if we were forced into a General Election immediately afterwards. I believe there are a great many Members, including Members of the Government, who by no means want to repeat the General Election experience of 1918 when the Armistice was on 11th November and the General Election was concluded by i4th December. Looking back on that election, I think that most people felt it was a mistake. But were there to be a Nazi collapse, even Cabinet Ministers might not be their own masters in this matter. The end of military pressure, of the cohesive power contained in continued war endurance, might release forces which, whether any particular individual wanted it or not, would make a General Election the only way out of an otherwise intolerable position.
If that should happen, a General Election under the present Act, which was passed last year, would take seven weeks. Thereafter, there is generally a period of three weeks before the House reassembles. When it reassembles there are formalities to be gone through; His Majesty makes his Gracious Speech; this is debated for two weeks, and, in ail, there is a period of something like 12 weeks or a quarter of a year during which no Acts of Parliament can be passed. This is a situation in which 1433 we may find ourselves round about the end of September or early October of this year. Is the state of the legislative programme, as a whole, such that we can confidently anticipate even the possibility of there being a period of some three months round about the autumn and winter of this year in which no Act of Parliament can be passed?
I do not wish to discuss merits. I will only mention some of the more obvious of the unfinished Bills. The Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Bill, already mentioned by the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell), was only half-finished yesterday. Surely, that Bill must be completed before we can contemplate a three months' interruption in the process of legislation. There is the Town and Country Planning Bill, to which a great many Amendments were threatened from many different quarters in the House. Surely that Bill needs to be passed. There would be an intolerable situation if, through our negligence, through our going away on vacation, we were to reach a situation in October, or thereabouts, in which the forces of the situation compelled a General Election, and local authorities had to sit back for a quarter of a year, without the faintest idea of what their fate was to be under the Town and Country Planning Bill, or in regard to the building of houses. There is the White Paper on the Location of Industries which, presumably, requires legislation, and has not even been framed into a Bill. Is not that something which this House should be proceeding with now after, perhaps, the very briefest Recess? There is the Unemployment White Paper which, if I heard the Debate aright, is going to require a certain amount of legislation in order to be operated. Are we really content to go away for seven weeks, perhaps to be hurriedly recalled in the fifth or sixth week, and then face a situation which this Government or whatever Government might be in existence would have to handle without any of the powers forecast by that Bill? It seems to me most extraordinary. Then there have been two reports from the Conference over which you, Mr. Speaker, presided, both of which require legislation before a General Election could even be held. One would have thought that those reports would require, between them, at least a week of Parliamentry Debate. Far from going away on a seven weeks' 1434 holiday, I am very surprised that the Government have not already asked us to begin sitting on Mondays in order to get through some of the business that needs to be done, if we are to be a little more prepared for peace—if it should fortunately come this autumn in Europe—than we were prepared for war in 1939.
Finally, I really feel that one must refer to the position of soldiers' voting apportunities which arose out of one of the reports of your Conference, Sir. I do not want to discuss merits but one is only stating a fact in saying that the present position in this respect is causing dissatisfaction in all parts of this House, irrespective of party. In this matter Private Members must not try to shovel off responsibility entirely on to the Government or even on to the Service Departments. We passed an Act of Parliament in the autumn of 1943, which most of us felt would be fairly satisfactory. We have found out from experience, however, that it is not satisfactory and you, Mr. Speaker, have written a letter to the Prime Minister as a result of your Conference proposing the most drastic alterations in it. That has to be done, and done very early. On top of that, even if the proposals in your letter were to be carried out, we would still face a problem which the House must take seriously. With certain notable exceptions—I would like to mention the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), who was a distinguished exception on this matter last autumn—the House then very much neglected the question of how members of the Armed Forces were to be informed about the candidates, the policies, and so on, of the different parties. I am confident that this House must take that subject seriously, and must try to insist upon the Government introducing such provisions as are contemplated by the Canadian Government.
In this connection my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) has shown me a Written Answer to a Question not reached at Question time to-day, which hon. Members will find extremely interesting if they will read it in HANSARD to-morrow, as to the proposals which the Canadian Government are making on this matter. It seems to me that this question which, in certain circumstances, may become of crucial importance at any moment, requires from this House at least a whole day's general Debate, the 1435 introduction by the Government of completely new proposals, and then a good deal of time before these proposals can be made operative. That all this work, added to the other Bills which I have mentioned, and other issues which I have not mentioned, should be pushed right back and not begun until 26th September—when crises of all kinds may be upon us before the first week in October—seems to me to be asking for trouble, and the House by this vote ought to prevent that trouble from occurring.
§ Mr. Gallacher (Fife, West)
May I rise to a point of Order, Mr. Speaker? If long speeches are to be made on this subject, will an extension of the hours of Sitting be arranged so that the Prime Minister may have an opportunity to speak?
§ Mr. Astor (Fulham, East)
Before I put certain questions to the Leader of the House, as a London Member, I would like to dissociate myself from those who say that people are going away for a holiday. Those of us who are London Members have great advantages, in that we can keep in close touch with our constituents during the Sittings of the House, and hon. Members have no doubt followed the injunctions of the Government not to travel, and not to go home for week-ends, although they have every right to go and see their constituents and keep in touch with them in a proper democratic manner. None the less, there are certain situations as regards London, which makes it important that this matter should be very seriously considered. At present, the situation as regards evacuation, as regards shelters—both their adequacy and number—and as regards public health in those shelters, is by no means altogether satisfactory.
There are certain possibilities of which we should think carefully. One is whether the enemy might not intensify his form of attack in some manner, as he has threatened; secondly, whether the public health situation might not seriously get worse among the people who are living in street shelters—already there are bed lice, already there is blanket rash, and things like that, and it is quite possible that this 1436 might lead to dysentery and serious public health dangers; thirdly, there is the certainty that the winter will come, and the weather will get even worse than it is now and the condition of those people will be less tolerable. If any of those three things happen, the Government will have to accelerate what they are doing about evacuation, especially taking camps away from the Army and training people to run them. Equally, the Government will have to accelerate what they are doing and what they propose to do regarding the erection of temporary houses, which is a matter of the utmost urgency, and I hope that this Bill will not be postponed another seven weeks.
If in these circumstances we leave these matters till 26th September, it will be very late indeed, and the winter will be upon us. I think it will not be necessary to come back if the Government are taking the necessary steps, and therefore I want to ask the Leader of the House two questions. First, will there be during the Recess a possibility for London and South-Country Members to meet the Home Secretary and Ministers in perhaps three weeks' time to discuss the situation? Secondly, can he give us a fairly close definition of what he means by "a responsible quarter"? If he has a letter from 1o, 20, 3o, 4o hon. Members—or what number does he suggest?—asking that the House shall be recalled, will that be considered? Could he, like God in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, state the number of just men there must be? I am not, of course, comparing London to those rather notorious cities, but the London Members are very worried about this and, while we do not want to prevent our country colleagues from seeing their constituents, we would like some assurance from the Government on the two points I have mentioned.
§ Mr. A. Bevan (Ebbw Vale)
The Members of my own party, I know, are a little divided on this matter, not on whether we ought to go away for seven weeks, but on why we ought to go away for seven weeks. That is part of our difficulty. I am sure I shall not be so unpopular with the Government for talking now as my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) was earlier, because now the Government want us to occupy the lunch hour so that the Prime Minister can come back when it is over. 1437 So I know I shall not be arousing the hostility which my hon. Friend aroused when he spoke at the beginning of the Debate.
It is a very strange situation in which we are now. As a general rule it is the Opposition which wants the Government to go away, because they are afraid of Government legislation. In the old days, it was the Opposition which used every Parliamentary device to prevent the Government from having its will; now, however, we have a House of Commons where the main parties are supporting the Government, and where one would imagine we all had such confidence in the Government that every conceivable facility ought to be given to them to enable them to bring in all the Bills they want and put them through quickly. Instead of that, here is a situation in which every party in the Government wants to go away for seven weeks and deny us the benefits of this Government's legislation. The Parliamentary Labour Party has held a meeting, I understand, at which it decided by an overwhelming majority to withdraw its confidence from the Government for seven weeks. Obviously, the situation is that, if we had as much enthusiasm in private for the Government as we have in public, all we would desire to do would be to keep the Ministers here, so that we might have the unending flow of benefits which we have received from them for the last six months.
The fact of the matter is that the House of Commons is now submerged in a sea of cant. The situation is that the Coalition drags itself on from week to week. It cannot bring legislation before the House of Commons and pass it. We have had a series of White Paper Debates on which to waste our time, most of which have concerned the next Parliament and not this—the White Paper on medical services, the White Paper on employment after the war, the White Paper on the Disposal of War Surpluses, the White Paper on Land Control. On them, in the last six months, the Government have spent weeks of energy, ourselves many Parliamentary days, and not a single one of them has found expression in legislation. In other words, the Coalition is spiritually dead. All that Parliament is waiting for is for the Army to defeat the Germans in order to get back to real politics once more.
1438 We have had, as my hon. Friend mentioned just now, the ridiculous situation in this country of an unprecedented demand for housing—a most appalling situation—and yet Parliament proposes to go away for seven weeks, I hope not because Parliament wants a holiday. The real truth is that Parliament is going away for seven weeks because every attempt to make this Coalition Government face a real issue results in a political crisis. To expect good legislation from this Coalition Government is like expecting a large family from a mule. It is perfectly true that we have had quite recently a very long Debate on town and country planning; we decided that the Coalition Government could only be kept together by not having any town and country planning. We had a Debate yesterday on emergency housing; we decided to keep the Coalition together by not having any emergency housing. We had a Debate last Friday on employment after the war; we decided to keep the Coalition together by' not having any plans for employment after the war. We have no plans for demobilisation, a most acute problem which may arise at any moment—no one can tell—for organised military resistance may collapse at any time.
§ Mr. Bevan
We should be faced with the most appalling problems of demobilisation—partial, not wholly. I do not want to be misunderstood here, because I may be misrepresented outside. There is no slackening in the desire of this country to continue the war against Japan, but, nevertheless, when the European emergency is over, the strain upon our manpower will be eased, and there will be problems of demobilisation because we shall not be able to employ our whole Army effectively against Japan. Where are the demobilisation plans? Nothing is more serious than to keep men in uniform, long after they ought to be sent home. We had that in 1918 and 1919 when there was no plan.
I do not intend to make a long speech. I conclude by saying that it is a bad thing for Parliament to go away for seven weeks' holiday when London is putting up its present struggle. I am not moved by those who argue that Members want to visit their constituents. We all know how real that is, and how real are the resolu- 1439 tions of party meetings about holidays. It is now customary for Members to meet in private and carry resolutions, and not even attend Parliament to carry them out. Some of my hon. Friends had better look at their Parliamentary record before they talk about visiting their constituents. It looks as if some of them use Parliamentary time to visit their constituents. In fact, I think some would prefer to meet their constituents here, rather than to see them near their own homes. It is obvious what is behind this seven weeks' Recess. It is that the Coalition Government is running down, hanging on week by week, and month by month, and hoping that some international crisis will give it a dose of oxygen and blow it up again. The time will soon be reached when this House and the country will find that they cannot get the legislation which is so badly needed, until this horrible affair of the Coalition is ended.
§ Commander Sir Archibald Southby (Epsom)
I do not want to occupy the time of the House for more than a few minutes, but it would be a great mistake for either the Government or Members of the House to think that people outside the House are not rather exercised in their minds at the prospect of the House rising for a prolonged period. It may well be that the general public do not understand the real position. They have an idea that when the House rises, it goes for a holiday. That is not true, and every Member knows it, but in certain parts of the country, where the flying bomb is a serious menace, there is a feeling that the House of Commons should be sitting. I would like to support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for East Fulham (Mr. Astor). Could my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House give us an assurance that if the situation on the home front—that is to say those parts of England where the flying bomb menace is worse than in others—should alter materially for the worse, the House would be recalled? I owe it to those I represent to make that suggestion.
I should also like to ask the Leader of the House whether he would clarify a little what the Government really mean by making inquiries and deciding, as a result of their inquiries, whether or not the House will be recalled. Do they mean that if in the view of members of the 1440 Government the House should come back, it will be recalled, or do they mean that if Members from constituencies particularly affected should indicate to the Leader of the House that in their view the House should be recalled, that suggestion will be carefully considered, and if possible the House will be recalled to deal with whatever matter those Members wish to bring forward? If the Leader of the House could give us that assurance, it would go a long way towards solving many of our difficulties. There is no doubt that, outside this House, there is a strong feeling against the House rising for a prolonged period. I am not one of those who think that the war is likely to come to an end before 26th September. I think we are in for a great deal more trouble than that, but at the same time the problems of evacuation and shelter are intensified by the oncoming of winter and these things loom large in the minds of the people living in the areas which are affected by the flying bombs.
I should like to quote a paragraph from a paper which is published in one of these areas, because it shows that there exists in people's minds a great deal of criticism and apprehension about the doings of this House. It states:Free or assisted travel under the Government-assisted travel scheme, other than any evacuation scheme, is to be suspended from 4th August to 8th August. Strange that Parliament should be breaking up for the nearly eight weeks' summer vacation on 3rd August. Presumably, journeys from London for Members are considered necessary, and they could not be expected to endure the discomforts and inconveniences of travel which have to be suffered by Servicemen and women and others. If they were compelled to do so, they might be a little more sympathetic towards those whose journeys are really necessary.That is a very wrong view of the feelings of Members in the House. I do not suppose there is one Member who has not suffered inconvenience in making a journey recently, who has not done it cheerfully and willingly nor one who desires to evade any inconvenience suffered by anybody else by reason of the war. Nevertheless, it shows there is abroad a feeling of criticism which should be allayed by the Leader of the House when he winds up this Debate. I think it a pity that we are going away for so long, but if my right hon. Friend can assure us that should responsible Members of this House—say 20, 30 or 40—submit to 1441 him the desirability of the House reassembling because of what is taking place in their divisions or elsewhere. I should go away with a much lighter heart.
§ Mr. Tinker (Leigh)
Perhaps it is well that a Member on this side, belonging to the Labour Party, should attempt to put our case, to follow what has been said already on this subject. Earlier to-day my party discussed the advisability of supporting the Amendment or supporting the Motion, and we decided to support the Government Motion on these grounds: We believe that if anything untoward happened in the interval the Government, who have in their ranks members of the Labour Party, would immediately call the House together. Further, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. A. Greenwood) could put a case to the Leader of the House to try to impress upon him the need for recalling the House. In view of that, we felt that the time was opportune for the House to go into Recess. The argument was put forward that, should something untoward happen, Parliament should be in Session. That would be met by the Government recalling the House. It was also suggested that legislation which needed to be carried on, ought to be attended to as quickly as possible. May I put this point? We are meeting four days a week and I ask hon. Members to examine their own consciences. How many Members attend regularly on four days a week? Those who are clamouring to come back—I am not blaming all who have spoken so far, because some do attend regularly—do not attend regularly.
§ Mr. Shinwell
It is just as well that we should have this out. If the hon. Member's statement goes unchallenged, it might go forth to the country and Members might be castigated for not attending. Would the hon. Member say categorically which Member of those who have spoken so far to-day does not attend regularly; and will he, at the same time, inform the House about the attendance of some of his colleagues?
§ Mr. Tinker
No, because the hon. Member is a regular attender. But perhaps Members' own consciences will tell them.
§ Mr. A. Bevan
On a point of Order. Is it not extremely undesirable and discourteous to the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for any Member to use innuendoes which may fall on a number of innocent persons? Should not the hon. Member either withdraw the statement he has made, or indicate the person or persons to whom he is referring? Only three or four Members have so far spoken.
§ Mr. Petherick (Penryn and Falmouth)
Is it not equally out of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) to suggest, as he did earlier to-day, that when Parliament goes into Recess, Members are having a long holiday.
§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner)
The point raised by the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) was not a point of Order.
§ Sir A. Southby
On a point of Order. As one who has taken part in the Debate to-day, and as one who sits opposite the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) day after day, and week after week in this House, may I suggest to him, through you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that it would be in Order either to justify his remark or withdraw it?
§ Mr. A. Edwards (Middlesbrough, East)
On a point of Order. As a very serious mis-statement was made by the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick), should it be allowed to go without a correction? Otherwise, it will be a great injustice to my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell).
§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) can be relied upon to look after himself.
§ Mr. Tinker
Speaking personally, I say that we must not get away from the question of attendance. Yesterday I sat in the House for two hours, when an important matter was being discussed, and the average attendance was about 20 Members during the whole of that time. We must face this matter. If we are so keen to be here at all times, the average attendance ought to be much better than it is. That is a general statement; it is very difficult to name individuals, but 1443 I ask Members to examine their own consciences, and see whether they are satisfied with their own attendances. If we see a general falling-off in attendance, if interest and enthusiasm are waning, is it not far better to have a break and then come back reinvigorated? That is what it is proposed at the present time. When the Government come forward with what is, after all, a regular proposal, for Members to have a holiday which is largely a rest, I think they are quite right. I felt I could put the case in support of the Government, because I claim to attend here as regularly as anybody. Because of that I am anxious for a rest and a break.
§ Mr. Tinker
No, I do not. The Government have power to call us together as required. They are following the usual procedure. Why should there be all this clamour about not having the holiday this time? I see no reason to cry out against it. Had there been a one-party Government I should have objected myself. I have objected before to a long break, because I have not had full confidence that the Government would recall us if required. But now I have more confidence, because we have members of our own party in the Government. That being so, we ought to have confidence in them. When we attend a party meeting and come to a unanimous decision we find members of the party do not attend that meeting and later protest against the decision.
§ Mr. Shinwell
Is the hon. Member saying that a party decision, a decision of a particular party, should influence Members of this House on a question which is solely the prerogative of hon. Members, and has nothing to do with a political decision?
§ Mr. Tinker
I accept the challenge. I put this before my hon. Friends. Their own people are those whom they should persuade first. It was known that this matter was coming before the party meeting to-day. None of these Members attended to put their case. It is about time that they were challenged on the Floor of the House.
§ Mr. Silverman: (Nelson and Colne)
Would it not be much more in Order if 1444 the Debate were confined to the Motion before the House rather than proceed along the lines of discussing something that has taken place somewhere else, at some other time?
§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
It would certainly be better if many of the things which are being said were left unsaid. It would also be better if the hon. Member were allowed to finish his speech.
§ Mr. Tinker
I think the House will be well advised to accept the Government offer and adjourn for seven weeks, in the belief that, if anything happens, we shall be called together.
§ Mrs. Tate (Frome)
I will not follow the hon. Member in his extremely interesting disclosures of what happens at Labour Party meetings. If he is content to rise for seven weeks, with legislation in the state in which it is at present, and with very important problems before the country, with which we ought to be dealing, he is extraordinarily easily pleased. Yesterday the Government brought in what was called a Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Bill, which involves no less than £150,000,000 and, what is far more important, is supposed to provide temporary houses, for which the need is so appalling that there is not one of us who is not gravely exercised about it. If these houses are to be factory-produced, as they are, it will be essential to lay down jigs in order that they may be produced in quantities at a fairly rapid rate. [Interruption.] "Laying down jigs" may not be the right term. I do not pretend to know the exact technical term but I am trying to make plain what everyone understands. If the houses are to be produced in large numbers, the framework that produces the material——
§ Mrs. Tate
A sum of £150,000,000 is at stake, and, unless the Bill passes before we meet again, those frames will have to be set up or the whole matter will be delayed. Are they going to be set up without the consent of the House of Commons, or is the matter going to be left in abeyance for another two or three months—because that is what it will mean?
There is another question. Hon. Members have spoken of the problem of the flying bombs as it affects the London area. 1445 The flying bomb affects many areas outside London. To give one very small example, the Government are appealing to, and in some cases even forcing, building operatives from all over the country to come to the London area to deal with exceedingly urgent repairs to damaged houses. Yet at the same time, we find, in a street not 300 yards from this House, building operatives employed in building a nursery school for children aged from nought to five. It is almost impossible to believe that kind of thing unless you come across it, but it is the kind of thing that is going on.
§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I must point out that the hon. Lady is travelling very far from the Motion before the House.
§ Mrs. Tate
I am exceedingly sorry, but I am merely saying that there are problems to deal with as the result of the flying bomb which arise because of the urgency of the housing problem, and it is suggested that we should go away for seven weeks and trust the Government to recall us in the event of some emergency, when these day-to-day problems call for immediate attention. It is not a matter of what the country thinks. It is a matter of what Members of the House, who know the circumstances, feel about it and I believe no conscientious Member could imagine that it is right to disperse for seven weeks at this time. I shall certainly support the Amendment.
§ Mr. Hugh Lawson (Skipton)
I feel that a speech made on a similar occasion to this—on 2nd August, 1939—is exactly the kind of speech that I want to make today. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) then used these words:Those of us in Opposition have an unanswerable claim to express our views from time to time in this period of grave danger." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd August, 1939; Vol. 350, c. 2428.]The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) said he had confidence in the Government, which included Members of his own party, and he could trust them to recall Parliament if the need arose. I am not in such a happy position. I do not trust this Government, and I do not trust the usual channels either. Because of my distrust of the Government, and the fact that I represent a small body of people, I feel that I can claim, as the right hon. Gentle- 1446 man the Member for Wakefield claimed, to be able to express my views on the actions of the Government from time to time in reference to the grave dangers that exist. I submit that the danger at this moment is just as grave as it was then. I cannot cast my mind back with a very great deal of accuracy to the end of the last war, but I have always understood that we won the war, but made rather a mess of the peace. I feel that the problems and dangers of the peace are, again, very much greater than the problems and dangers of the war. We are approaching the time when hostilities may cease, and that is the time of danger and the time when the Opposition should be very vigilant. Therefore, I support the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) in his belief that we should meet earlier than 26th September.
On the occasion to which I have referred, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield said that recent by-elections had shown that the opposition in the country was in greater numerical strength than in the House of Commons. That argument is just as valid to-day. In recent by-elections candidates fighting on the policies that I represent have, on one or two occasions, been successful, and on other occasions have shown that there is very considerable support for their point of view. The right hon. Gentleman used that as an argument for saying that the Opposition, because of changed opinion outside the House, had a very special right to see that Parliament did not go for a long Recess, and that the opposition must be vigilant. I use that to-day because I have no trust in the political direction of the war by this Government. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh but, when this is put to the test at by-elections, there is a very strong feeling that accepts that point of view. I should like to use the point that the Prime Minister used in August, 1939. He opposed a long Recess because things might happen in the Recess. Within a month, things had happened which started this war. If Parliament had been in Session, there would have been no need for a recall, and the country would have been in a better state to meet tremendous trials and dangers. I think one may look at some of the things that might happen in this period of great danger. The Prime Minister does not regard this as an ideological war but I really think it is so.
§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The particular character of the war does not seem to have any relation to the Motion.
§ Mr. Lawson
May I put it in this way? We cannot separate the conduct of the war from its political implications. I want to see Parliament in Session, so that the end of hostilities may not lead to a political settlement or line-up which I think would be bad for the country. I look at some of the acts of this Government, who have followed up military victory by what I consider to be political defeat, by compromising with such reactionaries as the Darlans and the Badoglios. What I am afraid of is that those people who showed before the war their great liking for the Powers in Europe which supported the Fascists and reactionaries will, as soon as the immediate danger of a threat to this country is over, once more go back to their old alignments. Once the German army is destroyed there is nothing to prevent this.
I do not trust the sort of peace that the party opposite are wanting to make. Therefore, I demand that we should not go into Recess just now so that, even if we are a small minority, we can be here to make our voice heard, as is the right of an opposition, however small, in a democratic Assembly such as this. The Prime Minister in that Debate in 1939 said, "We are safer when the House is sitting." That is just as pertinent now as ever it was. Because I do not trust the political direction of the war, and because I have regard to the safety of the common people of this country, I demand that the House should continue in Session. The safety of this country is threatened by this Recess from another point of view. Other hon. Members have referred at some length to the amount of legislation that is waiting to be carried through and the number of White Papers which have been presented and debated, but have not been turned into legislation. I regard these White Papers as a danger to the common people.
§ Mr. Lawson
If my hon. Friend waits a moment he will see where I consider the danger lies. I think that, in the main, these White Papers have been pre- 1448 sented and debated so that at the next Election, which may come very soon, the party opposite will have a large number of promises to put in their election manifesto. The argument that they will use will, no doubt, be, "If you want all this legislation you have got to put us back." The Parliamentary time-table has been arranged so that we can go into Recess without having been able to turn the White Papers into Bills. The Bills have not been presented, and, therefore, the country will not be able to see the hollowness of the White Papers. I want Parliament to go on meeting, so that we can really see the hollowness of the White Papers and so that the party opposite will not be able to turn them to account at the next Election. We want the House to meet so that we can show up this sham.
§ Mr. Eden
When the hon. Gentleman the Member for Skipton (Mr. H. Lawson) says he has no confidence in the higher direction of the war he gives, of course, a very good reason for the House not adjourning at all. He has no confidence in the Prime Minister and the War Cabinet in their direction of the war. That is a perfectly possible and, indeed, intelligible point of view. If it were the view of the majority of the House, clearly we could not adjourn. Not only could we not adjourn, but the Government could not occupy these benches. As that is not the view of the majority of the House, however, we need not take too long over that aspect of the discussion. There is another point made by the hon. Member which shows clearly that he is labouring under a sense of considerable confusion. I feel great sympathy with him, and I would like to extricate him a little from that confusion. He said that it would be a terrible thing if this House were to adjourn for seven weeks, and then suddenly we were by any chance to win this war—a very startling and terrible affair supposing that were to happen—and he said that we might make a peace, and that he did not like the sort of peace we would make. The hon. Gentleman need not be anxious. There is not the least risk of anything of that kind happening. He is really confusing two different things—the surrender of the enemy and the terms of the peace. The terms of peace, of course, are at an altogether later stage after the surrender of the enemy.
§ Mr. H. Lawson
I said that what I was afraid of was that in the actual act of surrender we should deal with a certain person in a certain country, as we did with Badoglio, for that would have a great deal to do with the final peace.
§ Mr. Stokes (Ipswich)
On a point of Order. I have been informed by hon. Members that they already knew yesterday that the Closure was to be moved about this time. A great number of Members still want to speak. I do not suggest for a moment that the rumour is true, but it looks like it when the right hon. Gentleman gets up to speak. The Government had the choice of putting down this Motion to-day or yesterday. They could have put it down yesterday. They put it down to-day because they knew the Prime Minister was going to speak to-day. I submit that full latitude should be allowed to Members to speak on this Motion.
§ Mr. Speaker
The Closure is entirely a matter for me and not for anybody else. It is my responsibility.
§ Earl Winterton
I hope it is in Order to suggest to the Government that they should not move the Closure yet. A number of us who have not made up our minds on the way to vote want to discuss the matter further. [Interruption.] I am putting the point to my right hon. Friend, that there are a number of Members who want to speak. We cannot disregard a matter affecting the rights of the House of Commons for the convenience of the Prime Minister.
§ Mr. Stokes
May I ask why the right hon. Gentleman is choosing this moment at which to rise to reply to the Debate? It is an extraordinary thing because it coincides with what is the common talk in the Smoking Room.
§ Mr. Eden
I apologise humbly to the hon. Gentleman that any Member of the 1450 Government should have the impertinence at any time to rise in his place, but I did think, as the discussion had gone on quite a while, the time had perhaps come when a Member of the Government might make one or two observations. I have not even begun to submit my observations when I find myself assailed, first by the non. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), and then by the Noble Lord, for an action which I have not yet taken. If I may be allowed to proceed, I will answer some of the observations that have been made. My hon. Friend the Member for East Fulham (Mr. Astor) spoke about the London Members. Of course, there is a special position about London Members and Members for constituencies which are specially affected by the flying bomb. I am in a little difficulty about this, because I do not think I should from this Box speak too much about informal meetings between Ministers and Members; it makes them a little too formal. But I can say that, certainly, during the Recess the Ministers principally concerned will be quite ready to meet hon. Members who are concerned, just as they have been doing while the House has been sitting. It is only a question of making the necessary physical arrangements.
It does not meet the position of London Members, who want a meeting of the House and not Private Members' meetings behind closed doors.
§ Mr. Eden
The hon. Member speaks for himself. He cannot speak, for London. I am answering my hon. Friend who made that suggestion in the Debate. The hon. Gentleman said that it does not meet the case, but it does answer the question that my hon. Friend put. I was also asked by my hon. Friend how many Members would we regard as a quorum, to approach the Government, to ask for the reassembly of the House? I think that in a matter of this kind, the Government must be left a certain measure of discretion. The Government of this country rests upon Parliament. We should not be so intensely foolish as to try to carry on as a Government and not to meet when we were conscious that there was a large 1451 body of Members who thought we ought to meet. I am sure that there is no means by which the Government could more quickly lose their position and authority.
§ Mr. Eden
I am dealing with the present war situation. I will show what happened on previous occasions. I can say that throughout this war the Government have not only tried to carry the support of Parliament in the work they have been doing but have succeeded. So far as I am concerned, with the little influence I have with the Government, I should regard it as absolutely calamitous if we were not to continue that close contact and were to refuse a meeting which we felt the House really wanted to have. We are not doing an abnormal thing. From some of the speeches to-day one would think that Parliament had never adjourned at this time of the year before. It is a perfectly normal procedure, and I ask the House to believe my assurance that we would not hesitate to recall Members if it seemed right and necessary to do so. We have done it before in the course of this war. We did it, for instance, at the time of Dakar, in October, 1940, when we brought the House back to make a report about that situation. We would certainly bring the House hack, if parallel circumstances were to arise, although I hope this time it would be better news.
§ Mr. Shinwell
While I was speaking I was constantly interrupted, and the right hon. Gentleman must not complain.
§ Mr. Eden
I am not complaining, but merely observing. Even Ministers are allowed to observe. As far as that Conference is concerned, the matter will, of course, be discussed in the House in due course before any final decisions are taken.
Now I would like, if I may, to strike a more serious note. The House has been more than generous to me for more than two years of war, when I have tried to lead them, and I can assure the House I have been grateful for that. I think, in all seriousness, that we should make a mistake if we were to get into the state of mind in which we thought that we were doing our duty as a House, merely by sitting on these Benches. Really, I do not think that that is true. Some of the speeches to-day have been on that note. I believe that the country judges the work that this House does, not by the number of days that we sit, but by the quality of the discussion, and by the attendance of Members during the discussion. I think it would be better—and in this I am speaking for myself on this subject—for the authority of Parliament if it sat less and if its Debates were better attended than they are.
§ Mr. Eden
The hon. Member keeps trying to make debating points. I am merely trying to put what I believe to be the Parliamentary position. I am not thinking of any party when I say that we should not get into the frame of mind of thinking that Parliament must show itself active, and therefore should always be in session. That is not the tradition on which we have been founded, and I do not think that it is a policy or a line of thought that we should be wise to pursue. It is not anything exceptional that is being done. The only real point in the speeches is that because of the flying bomb we should change what is, admittedly, our normal practice. We have decided to continue our normal practice, despite the flying bomb, whether it is our normal practice of being in session or of not being in session.
I think it is quite right to suggest that when hon. Members are sitting here, they are not visiting their constituencies. I know some who do not, and those are Ministers. For us, at the present time, it is an anxiety, but it is almost impossible 1453 to keep in touch with a big constituency. I know that many hon. Members take the opportunity of the Recess to visit their constituencies because, unless they do it then, they cannot come back to the House having full contact with the public mind, which is a necessary part of their work. What happened in the last war? A very much similar practice was followed. I have looked up with some interest the Adjournments during the last war, and I find that, in 1916, there was a six weeks' Adjournment; in 1917, there was an Adjournment for seven weeks, and, in 1918, there was an Adjournment for nine weeks—and we won the war.
§ Mr. Eden
When I look at those figures I reflect that the Government have been a little over-modest in their suggestion at the present time. I will sum up, and, if I may, give some guidance to the House. I repeat the undertaking. If events should arise, either international or otherwise, which call for the earlier meeting of this House, the House will be assembled. We think it unwise to fix a definite date, such as three weeks from now. No one can tell whether any gain would accrue from any meeting of this House on that date, and some elasticity must be left to us. What it amounts to is that I ask the House to have confidence in the Govern-
|Division No. 31||AYES.|
|Adams, Major S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)||Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)||Digby, Capt, K. S. D. W.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Cannock)||Broad, F. A.||Dobbie, W.|
|Agnew, Comdr. P. G.||Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.||Doland, G. F.|
|Albery, Sir Irving||Brooke, H. (Lewisham)||Douglas, F. C. R.|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.||Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)||Drewe, C.|
|Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (So'h, Univ.)||Brown, T. J. (Ince)||Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)|
|Apsley, Lady||Bullock, Capt. M.||Dugdale, Major T. L. (Richmond)|
|Astor, Viso'tess (Plymouth, Sutton)||Burden, T. W.||Duncan, Rt. Hon. Sir A. R. (C. Ldn.)|
|Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)||Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.||Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.(Kens'gton, N.)|
|Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.||Burke, W. A.||Dunn, E.|
|Balfour, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. H.||Burton, Col. H. W.||Eccles, D. M.|
|Barr, J.||Caine, G. R. Hall-||Eden, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Bartlett, C. V. O.||Campbell, Sir E. T. (Bromley)||Edmondson, Major Sir J.|
|Baxter, A. Beverley||Cary, R. A.||Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P.||Channon, H.||Edwards, Walter J. (Whitechapel)|
|Beauchamp, Sir B. C.||Charleton, H. C.||Elliot, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. W. E.|
|Beaumont, Hubert (Batley)||Chater, D.||Emmott, C. E. G. C.|
|Beaumont, Maj. Hn. R. E. B. (P'tsm'th)||Chorlton, A. E. L.||Errington, Squadron-Leader E.|
|Beech, Major F. W.||Clarry, Sir Reginald||Evans, Col, Sir A. (Cardiff, S.)|
|Beechman, N. A.||Cluse, W. S.||Foot, D. M.|
|Bennett, Sir P. F. B. (Edgbaston)||Cobb, Captain E. C.||Foster, W.|
|Benson, G.||Conant, Major R. J. E.||Frankel, D.|
|Berry, Hon. G. L. (Buckingham)||Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)||Furness, S. N.|
|Bevin, Rt. Hon. E. (Wandsworth, C.)||Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.||Gammans, Capt. L. D.|
|Bird, Sir R. B.||Crowder, Capt, J. F. E.||Garro Jones, G. M.|
|Blair, Sir R.||Culverwell, C. T.||Gates, Major E. E.|
|Blaker, Sir R.||Daggar, G.||George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)|
|Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.||Davidson, Viscountess (H'm'l H'mst'd)||Gibson, Sir C. G.|
|Bossom, A. C.||De Chair, S. S.||Glanville, J. E.|
|Brabner, Comdr. R. A.||Denville, Alfred||Gledhill, G.|
§ ment's intention to carry the House with them in these stages of the war, as they have done throughout. I pledge myself, so far as lies in my power, to do my best to fulfil that pledge.
§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. James Stuart) rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Mr. Speaker
That point was raised by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) and I answered that responsibility for the Closure was entirely mine. I accept that responsibility.
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 286; Noes, 17.
|Gluckstein, Col. L. H.||Liddall, W. S.||Shepherd, S.|
|Glyn, Sir R. G. C.||Linstead, H. N.||Shepperson, Sir E. W.|
|Goldie, N. B.||Lipson, D. L.||Shute, Col. Sir J. J.|
|Graham, Capt. A. C.||Little, Sir E. Graham. (London Univ.)||Silkin, L.|
|Green, W. H. (Deptford)||Llewellin, Col. Rt. Hon. J. J.||Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)|
|Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.||Loftus, P.C.||Smith, E. (Stoke)|
|Grenfell, D. R.||Longhurst, Captain H. C.||Smith, E. P. (Ashford)|
|Gretton, J. F.||Lucas, Major Sir J. M.||Smith, T. (Normanton)|
|Gridley, Sir A. B.||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Oliver||Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir D. B.|
|Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)||MacAndrew, Col. Sir C. G.||Southby, Comdr. Sir A. R. J.|
|Grigg, Sir E. W. M. (Altrincham)||McCorquodale, Malcolm S.||Spearman, A. C. M.|
|Grigg, Rt. Hon. Sir P. J. (Cardiff, E.)||Macdonald, Captain Peter (I. of W.)||Spears, Maj.-Gen. Sir E. L.|
|Grimston, Hon. J. (St. Albans)||McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.||Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)|
|Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)||Maitland, Sir A.||Storey, S.|
|Guest, Lt.-Col. H. (Drake)||Makins, Brig.-Gen. Sir E.||Stourton, Hon. J. J.|
|Guinness, T. L. E. B.||Manningham-Buller, R. E.||Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)|
|Gunston, Major Sir D. W.||Marlowe, Lt.-Col. A.||Strickland, Capt. W. F.|
|Hall, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Aberdare)||Mathers, G.||Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray & Nairn)|
|Hammersley, S. S.||Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.||Studholme, Major H. C.|
|Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A.||Mellor, Sir J. S. P.||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.|
|Harvey, T. E.||Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)||Sutcliffe, H.|
|Helmore, Air Commodore W.||Mitcheson, Sir G. G.||Sykes, Maj.-Gen. Rt. Hon. Sir F. H.|
|Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)||Molson, A. H. E.||Tate, Mrs. Mavis C.|
|Henderson, J. (Ardwick)||Montague, F.||Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'd'ton, S.)|
|Henderson, J. J. Craik (Leeds, N.E.)||Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.||Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)|
|Henderson, T. (Tradeston)||Morgan, Dr. H. B. W. (Rochdale)||Taylor, F. J. (Morpeth)|
|Hepburn, Major P. G. T. Buchan-||Morgan, R. H. (Stourbridge)||Teeling, Flight-Lieut. W.|
|Herbert, Petty-Officer A. P. (Oxford U.)||Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)||Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)|
|Higgs, W. F.||Morris-Jones, Sir Henry||Thomas, Dr. W. S. Russell (S'th'm'tn)|
|Hinchingbrooke, Viscount||Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)||Thorne, W.|
|Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.||Morrison, Major J. G. (Salisbury)||Thorneycroft, Maj. G. E. P. (Stafford)|
|Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)|
|Horsbrugh, Florence||Murray, J. D. (Spennymoor)||Thornton-Kemsley, Lt.-Col. C. N.|
|Hewitt, Dr. A. B.||Naylor, T. E.||Thurtle, E.|
|Hudson, Sir A. (Hackney, N.)||Nicolson, Hon. H. G. (Leicester, W.)||Tinker, J. J.|
|Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)||Oldfield, W. H.||Tomlinson, G.|
|Hughes, R. Moelwyn||Parker, J.||Touche, G. C.|
|Hume, Sir G. H.||Peake, Rt. Hon. O.||Tree, A. R. L. F.|
|Hutchison, Lt.-Com. G. I. C. (E'burgh)||Peat, C. U.||Turton, R. H.|
|Isaacs, G A.||Petherick, M.||Walker-Smith, Sir J.|
|James, Wing-Com. A. (Well'borough)||Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.||Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)|
|Jarvis, Sir J. J.||Pete, Major B. A. J.||Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.|
|Jeffreys, General Sir G. D.||Pickthorn, K. W. M.||Waterhouse, Captain Rt. Hon. C|
|Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)||Pilkington, Captain R. A.||Watkins, F. C.|
|Jennings, R.||Plugge, Capt. L. F.||Watt, Brig. G. S. Harvie (Richmond)|
|Jewson, P. W.||Ponsonby, Col. C. E.||Wayland, Sir W. A.|
|John, W.||Poole, Captain, C. C.||Webbe, Sir W. Harold|
|Johnston, Rt. Hn. T. (St'l'g & C'km'n)||Prescott, Capt. W. R. S.||Wedderburn, H. J. S.|
|Jones, Sir L. (Swansea, W.)||Prior, Comdr. F. M.||Wells, Sir S. Richard|
|Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.||Procter, Major H. A.||Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Comdr. Hn. L. W.||Quibell, D. J. K.||White, Sir Dymoke (Fareham)|
|Keir, Mrs. Cazalet||Raikes, H. V. A. M.||White, H. (Derby, N.E.)|
|Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)||Rankin, Sir R.||White, H. Graham (Birkenhead, E.)|
|Kerr, Sir John Graham (Scottish U's.)||Roberts, W.||Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. (Blaydon)|
|Key, C. W.||Robertson, D. (Streatham)||Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)|
|Kimball, Major L.||Robertson, Rt. Hn. Sir M. A. (Mitcham)||Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)|
|King-Hall, Commander W. S. R.||Ross Taylor, W.||Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U.|
|Kirby, B. V.||Rothschild, J. A. de||Windsor, W.|
|Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.||Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.||Womersley, Rt. Hon. Sir W.|
|Lakin, C. H. A.||Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth)||Woodburn, A.|
|Lamb, Sir J. Q.||Salter, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Oxford U.)||Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)|
|Lancaster, Lieut.-Col. C. G.||Sanderson, Sir F. B.||Wootton-Davies, J. H.|
|Lawson, J. J. (Chester-le-Street)||Sandys, E. D.||Young, Sir R. (Newton)|
|Leach, W.||Savory, Professor D. L.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—|
|Leigh, Sir J.||Schuster, Sir G. E.||Major A. S. Young and Mr. Pym.|
|Leslie, J. R.||Scott, R. D. (Wansbeck)|
|Bevan, A. (Ebbw Vale)||Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Islington, N.)||Stokes, R. R.|
|Bowles, F. G.||Horabin, T. L.||Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)|
|Buchanan, G.||Kendall, W. D.||White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)|
|Davies, Clement (Montgomery)||Lawson, H. M. (Skipton)|
|Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham (St. M.)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:—|
|Driberg, T. E. N.||Shinwell, E.||Mr. Reakes and Sir R. Acland.|
|Granville, E. L.||Silverman, S. S.|
§ Question put accordingly, "That '26th September' stand part of the Question."
|Division No. 32.||AYES.|
|Adams, Major S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)||Evans, Col. Sir A. (Cardiff, S.)||Lancaster, Lieut.-Col. C. G.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Cannock)||Foot, D. M.||Lawson, J. J. (Chester-le-Street)|
|Agnew, Comdr. P. G.||Foster, W.||Leach, W.|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.||Fox, Squadron-Leader Sir G. W. G.||Lees-Jones, J.|
|Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (So'h Univ.)||Frankel, D.||Leigh, Sir J.|
|Apsley, Lady||Furness, S. N.||Leslie, J. R.|
|Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)||Gammans, Capt. L. D.||Liddall, W. S.|
|Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.||Garro Jones, G. M.||Linstead, H. N.|
|Balfour, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. H.||Gates, Major E. E.||Lipson, D. L.|
|Barr, J.||George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)||Llewellin, Col. Rt. Hon. J. J.|
|Baxter, A. Beverley||Gibson, Sir C. G.||Loftus, P. C.|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P.||Glanville, J. E.||Longhurst, Captain H. C.|
|Beauchamp, Sir B. C.||Gledhill, G.||Lucas, Major Sir J. M.|
|Beaumont, Hubert (Batley)||Gluckstein, Col. L. H.||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Oliver|
|Beaumont, Maj. Hon. R. E. B. (P'ts'h)||Glyn, Sir R. G. C.||MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.|
|Beech, Major F. W.||Goldie, N. B.||McCorquodale, Malcolm S.|
|Beechman, N. A.||Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)||Macdonald, Captain Peter (I. of W.)|
|Bellenger, F. J.||Green, W. H. (Deptford)||McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.|
|Bennett, Sir P. F. B. (Edgbaston)||Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.||Maitland, Sir A.|
|Benson, G.||Grenfell, D. R.||Makins, Brig,-Gen. Sir E.|
|Berry, Hon. G. L. (Buckingham)||Gretton, J. F.||Mender, G. le M.|
|Bevin, Rt. Hon. E. (Wandsworth, C.)||Gridley, Sir A. B.||Manningham-Buller, R. E.|
|Bird, Sir R. B.||Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)||Marlowe, Lt.-Col. A.|
|Blair, Sir R.||Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)||Mathers, G.|
|Blaker, Sir R.||Grigg, Sir E. W. M. (Altrincham)||Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.|
|Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.||Grigg, Rt. Hon. Sir P. J. (Cardiff, E.)||Mellor, Sir J. S. P.|
|Bossom, A. C.||Grimston, Hon. J. (St. Albans)||Mills, Colonel J. D. (New Forest)|
|Brabner, Comdr. R. A.||Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)||Mitcheson, Sir G. G.|
|Bracken, Rt. Hon. B.||Guest, Lt.-Col. H. (Drake)||Molson, A. H. E.|
|Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)||Guinness, T. L. E. B.||Montague, F.|
|Broad, F. A.||Gunston, Major Sir D. W.||Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.|
|Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.||Hall, Rt. Hon. G H. (Aberdare)||Morgan, Dr. H. B. W. (Rochdale)|
|Brooke, H. (Lewisham)||Hammersley, S. S.||Morgan, R. H. (Stourbridge)|
|Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)||Hannon, Sir P. J. H.||Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)|
|Brown, T. J. (Ince)||Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A.||Morris-Jones, Sir Henry|
|Bullock, Capt. M.||Harvey, T. E.||Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)|
|Burden, T. W.||Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)||Morrison, Major J. G. (Salisbury)|
|Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.||Henderson, J. (Ardwick)||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)|
|Burke, W. A.||Henderson, J. J. Craik (Leeds, N.E.)||Murray, J. D. (Spennymoor)|
|Burton, Col. H. W.||Henderson, T. (Tradeston)||Naylor T. E.|
|Caine, G. R. Hall||Heneage, Lt.-Col. A. P.||Nicolson, Hon. H. G. (Leicester, W.)|
|Campbell, Sir E. T. (Bromley)||Hepburn, Major P.G. T. Buchan-||Oldfield, W. H.|
|Cary, R. A.||Herbert, Petty Officer A. P. (Oxford U.)||O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H|
|Channon, H.||Hicks, E. G.||Parker, J.|
|Charleton, H. C.||Higgs, W. F.||Peake, Rt. Hon. O.|
|Chater D.||Hinchingbrooke, Viscount||Peat, C. U.|
|Churchill, Rt. Hn. Winston S. (Ep'ing)||Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.||Petherick, M.|
|Clarke, Colonel R. S.||Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.||Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon, F. W.|
|Clarry, Sir Reginald||Horsbrugh, Florence||Peto, Major B. A. J.|
|Cluse, W. S.||Howitt, Dr. A. B.||Pickthorn, K. W. M.|
|Cobb, Captain E. C.||Hudson, Sir A. (Hackney, N.)||Pilkington, Captain R. A.|
|Conant, Major R. J. E.||Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)||Plugge, Capt. L. F.|
|Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)||Hume, Sir G. H.||Ponsonby, Col. C. E.|
|Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.||Hutchinson, G. C. (Ilford)||Prescott, Capt. W. R. S.|
|Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.||Hutchison, Lt.-Com. G. I. C. (E'burgh)||Prior, Comdr. R. M.|
|Culverwell, C. T.||Isaacs, G. A.||Procter, Major H. A.|
|Daggar, G.||James, Wing-Com. A. (Well'borough)||Quibell, D. J. K.|
|Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.||Jarvis, Sir J. J.||Raikes, Flight-Lieut. H. V. A. M.|
|Davidson, Viscountess (H'm'l H'mst'd)||Jeffreys, Gen. Sir G. D.||Rankin, Sir R.|
|De Chair, Capt. S. S.||Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)||Roberts, W.|
|Denville, Alfred||Jennings, R.||Robertson, D. (Streatham)|
|Digby, Major K. S. D. W.||Jewsen, P. W.||Robertson, Rt. Hon. Sir M. A. (M'ham)|
|Dobbie, W.||John, W.||Ross Taylor, W.|
|Dodd, J. S.||Johnston, Rt. Hon. T. (Stl'g & C'km'n)||Rothschild, J. A. de|
|Doland, G. F.||Johnstone, Rt. Hon. H. (Mid'sbro W.)||Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.|
|Douglas, F. C. R.||Jones, Sir L. (Swansea, W.)||Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth)|
|Drewe, C.||Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.||Sanderson, Sir F. B.|
|Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)||Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Comdr. Hon. L. W.||Sandys, E. D.|
|Dugdale, Major T. L. (Richmond)||Keeling, E. H.||Savory, Professor D. L.|
|Duncan, Rt. Hon. Sir A. R. (C. Ldn.)||Keir, Mrs. Cazalet||Schuster, Sir G. E.|
|Duncan, Capt. J. A. L. (Kens'gt'n, N.)||Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)||Scott, Donald (Wansbeck)|
|Dunn, E||Kerr, Sir John Graham (Scottish U's)||Shephard, S.|
|Eccles, D. M.||Key, C. W.||Shepperson, Sir E. W.|
|Eden, Rt. Hon. A.||Kimball, Major L.||Shute, Col. Sir J. J.|
|Edmondson, Major Sir J.||King-Hall, Commander W. S. R.||Silkin, L.|
|Edwards, Walter J. (Whitechapel)||Kirby, B. V.||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A.|
|Elliot, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. W. E.||Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.||Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)|
|Emmott, C. E. G. C.||Lakin, C. H. A.||Smith, E. (Stoke)|
|Errington, Squadron-Leader E.||Lamb, Sir J. Q.||Smith, E. P. (Ashford)|
§ The House divided: Ayes, 296; Noes, 26.
|Smith, T. (Normanton)||Testing, Flight-Lieut. W.||Wedderburn, H. J. S.|
|Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir D. B.||Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)||Wells, Sir S. Richard|
|Southby, Comdr. Sir A. R. J.||Thomas, Dr. W. S. Russell (S'th'm'tn)||Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Spearman, A. C. M.||Thorne, W.||White, Sir Dymoke (Fareham)|
|Spears, Maj.-Gen. Sir E. L.||Thorneycroft, Maj. G. E. P. (Stafford)||White, H. (Derby, N.E.)|
|Stanley, Col. Rt. Hon. Oliver||Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)||While, H. Graham (Birkenhead, E.)|
|Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)||Thornton-Kemsley, Lt.-Col. C. N.||Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. (Blaydon)|
|Stewart, W. Joseph (H'gton-le-Spring)||Thurtle, E.||Wilkinson, Ellen|
|Storey, S.||Tinker, J. J.||Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)|
|Stourton, Hon. J. J.||Tomlinson, G.||Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)|
|Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)||Touche, G. C.||Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U.|
|Strickland, Capt. W. F.||Tree, A. R. L. F.||Windsor, W.|
|Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)||Turton, R. H.||Womersley, Rt. Hon. Sir W.|
|Studholme, Major H. C.||Walker-Smith, Sir J.||Woodburn, A.|
|Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.||Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)||Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)|
|Sutcliffe, H.||Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.||Wootton-Davies, J. H.|
|Sykes, Maj.-Gen. Rt. Hon. Sir F. H.||Waterhouse, Captain Rt. Hon. C.||Young, Sir R. (Newton)|
|Taylor, Major C. S. (Eastbourne)||Watkins, F. C.|
|Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'd'ton, S.)||Watt, Brig. G. S. Harvie (Richmond)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—|
|Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)||Wayland, Sir W. A.||Major A. S. L. Young and|
|Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)||Webbe, Sir W. Harold||Mr. Pym.|
|Bevan, A.||Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Islington, N.)||Stokes, R. R.|
|Bower, Norman (Harrow)||Horabin, T. L.||Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)|
|Bowles, F. G.||Kendall, W. D.||Tate, Mrs. Mavis C.|
|Brown, W. J. (Rugby)||Lawson, H. M. (Skipton)||Walkden, E. (Doncaster)|
|Davies, Clement (Montgomery)||Poole, Captain C. C.||White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)|
|Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)||Pritt, D. N.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||Realms, G. L. (Wallasey)|
|Driberg, T. E. N.||Raid, Capt. A. Cunningham (St. M.)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:—|
|Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)||Shinwell, E.||Sir Richard Acland and Mr. Edgar|
|Gallacher, W.||Sorenson, R. W.||Granville.|
§ Main Question put, and agreed to.
That this House, at its rising To-morrow, do adjourn till Tuesday, 26th September.