§ EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTONMy Lords, I should like to ask a question with reference to the adjournment. We have had no clear intimation as to the date to which the Government propose to ask the two Houses of Parliament to adjourn. To my great surprise I learned just now from a noble Lord sitting behind me that it is in contemplation to adjourn to a period as late as February 3 next. Previous to that I had gathered, from such information as reached me, that the Government were going to ask Parliament to adjourn until the beginning of January, and I should have thought that there were very strong reasons in favour of such a step. Noble Lords will remember that when we last adjourned towards the end of September a period of something like two months elapsed before Parliament met again; and if we now adjourn until February 3 it will be a period, roughly speaking, of from nine to ten weeks. I confess that at a time like the present I look with some anxiety upon that position. I should have thought it might have been very desirable, in the interests of the Government itself as well as in the interests of the Opposition and of the public, that Parliament should adjourn to an earlier period so that it might, if required, meet again comparatively soon.
I think we can all conceive circumstances in which the Government On the one hand might want the assistance of Parliament, or, on the other hand, we of the Opposition might desire to put Questions to the Government. There was a case that arose just now. I did not speak upon it because I was not quite certain whom I represented; my Party was not only somewhat attenuated in a numbers, but divided in judgment. But I learned to my regret that a pledge was given that an Act of Parliament which was to be passed to-day is to be abrogated in one important particular until Parliament meets again. Now we are told that Parliament is not to meet again until February 3. I confess that my anxiety at that precedent, which is considerable, would be relieved if I thought that Parliament was going to be adjourned only until, say, January 3. Is there any good reason why we should not adjourn until an earlier period than has been suggested, and then, if there is no business to be brought before Parliament, 229 adjourn again as we have done more than once in the last six months? I think the noble Marquess the Leader of the House will not regard it as unreasonable that I should put this question.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWEAs the noble Earl will recognise, our proceedings are not in any way tied by those of the other House in the matter of adjournment, and if the noble Earl would prefer that we should adjourn to a date early in January, with, of course, the prospect or at any rate the probability of an immediate further adjournment, I am quite willing to meet him in that respect. Wednesday the 6th of January, if the noble Earl likes, might he regarded as a suitable date. It by no means follows that we should then meet for public business, but it would cover, at any rate to some extent, the point which the noble Earl (Lord Loreburn) raised in connection with the Bill which has just been passed—the Defence of the Realm Consolidation Bill.
§ EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTONI am greatly obliged to the noble Marquess for what he has said, and I think that the concession that he has offered will be welcome to all of us.
§ House adjImmed during pleasure.
§ House resumed.