§ Mr. BowlesOn a point of order. Perhaps it would be appropriate to refer at this point to the Ruling which you, Mr. Speaker, gave yesterday on the application of Standing Order No. 9. You said that, in view of the fact that there was to be an Adjournment debate, agreed upon between the usual channels, you could not consider a proposed Motion by the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds) to move the Adjournment of the House in order to raise the question of Erith. May I put it that, although there was no doubt an agreement between the usual channels, there was no certainty that the House would get on to the Adjournment at any time during the night? The Consolidated Fund Bill is exempted business and it would have been in order for us to carry on for a long time on the remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund Bill.
May I, therefore, suggest that you should review your decision of yesterday—that, because of an Adjournment debate 1857 arranged between the usual channels, you could not give consideration to the raising on the Adjournment of a definite matter of urgent public importance? I suggest that you really could not have been quite sure that we would have got on to the Adjournment last night at all. Had we been dealing with something other than the Consolidated Fund Bill, you could have said that we would have been on the Adjournment at ten o'clock.
I suggest, with great respect, that in future no Ruling of that kind should be given in these circumstances, because you could not know that the Adjournment debate would be reached. I say, with great respect, that the Government were saved by a mistake. [Interruption.] I hope that I have made my point clear. Hon. Members opposite will soon be on the Opposition benches and should be interested in this point. I wonder whether. Mr. Speaker, you have got my point?
§ Mr. SpeakerI think that I am fully in possession of the hon. Member's point, but I can assure him that the Ruling which I gave yesterday is a Ruling that has been given many times and is no invention of mine. If arrangements are made through the usual channels and for the convenience of the House that a certain subject may be debated on the Adjournment, that is no business of mine and has nothing to do with me. All that concerns me is to see that only proper matters for debate on the Adjournment are raised, and any matter proper for debate on the Adjournment can be raised on the Adjournment. Therefore, there is nothing that can be done to move an Adjournment on an Adjournment. It is quite impossible. If the hon. Member will come to see me, I will refer him to the precedents on which I based my statement.
§ Mr. BowlesI respectfully suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you have not got my point, because I am assuming that there would not have been a question of moving the Adjournment on the Adjournment because the Adjournment might not have been moved at all.
§ Mr. SpeakerI was told that it would be moved. In fact, at seven o'clock, 1858 when the Motion would have become effective, the Question before the House yesterday was the Adjournment, and therefore my Ruling was proper.
§ Mr. BowlesWith great respect, Mr. Speaker, you have not quite got my point. The position is that you were in fact right that at seven o'clock last night we would be on the Adjournment, but my point is that, as, for example the Irish Nationalist Party or the I.L.P. did, any hon. Friends of mine, if they had been so minded, could clearly have disobeyed the arrangements reached between the Government and the Opposition Front Benches and could have talked about the Consolidated Fund Bill ad libitum or, in the case of an ordinary Bill, until 10 o'clock, whatever the arrangements between the Front Benches. [Interruption.] I am up against the obstacle of the noise which is coming from the Government side of the House but I believe that I am trying to make an important point.
Do you please see, Mr. Speaker, that the Government agreement with the Opposition could have been frustrated by hon. Members keeping the debate going on the remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund Bill even until now, if they had been in order, and therefore no arrangements made between the Opposition and the Government Front Benches could necessarily have been enforced? I suggest to you, therefore, that you could not possibly make up your mind that my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford should not have consideration given to his Motion to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9.
§ Mr. SpeakerI have considered what the hon. Member has said, but I still think that my decision was founded on well-established principle and precedent.
§ Mr. DoddsOn a point of order. I should like to ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker. In view of what has transpired, shall I have the right tomorrow, should I so desire, to seek the Adjournment of the House on this matter?
§ Mr. SpeakerI think that we had better wait until tomorrow. The hon. Member can make his Motion tomorrow, but I should feel some difficulty in accepting it.