§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE) (Lord Cecil): My Lords, before we proceed to the next Motion on the Paper, I should like by leave of the House to say one word with regard to the business. We have, as your Lordships are aware, three Motions on the Paper. One has been completed. There remain one in the name of Lord Gainford and a further one in the name of Lord Vansittart. I understand that a large number of Peers wish to speak on Lord Vansittart's Motion, and it is perfectly clear we shall not get through it to-night. What I suggest to the House is that we should take Lord Gainford's Motion and Lord Vansittart's speech, and then adjourn, resuming the discussion of Lord Vansittart's Motion at a later sitting. I think that would be for the convenience of the House, because there is no prospect of finishing Lord Vansittart's Motion to-night.
§ LORD ADDISONMy Lords, I heartily support the suggestion which has been made by the Leader of the House. It seems to me that it would be quite impossible to give adequate consideration to the very important Motion by Lord Vansittart at this time of day. A more adequate opportunity would certainly be available on the day suggested.
§ LORD ARNOLDMy Lords, speaking as an independent member of the House, I should like to point out that this is a very unusual procedure and an extremely inconvenient one. This Motion has been on the Paper for some time, and, as the noble Viscount says, there are a great many speakers—I am not one myself—who wish to take part. The position that has arisen could have been perfectly well foreseen by the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart. Any one could have seen that this Motion would not be reached until a late hour. The speech by Mr. Herbert Morrison that he is criticizing is already out of date, and altogether this is a procedure 1063 which, in my opinion, ought not to be followed. I for one enter my protest against what has been arranged.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNEI am very sorry that this procedure does not suit my noble friend Lord Arnold, but I can assure him there is nothing new about it. It is a very frequent procedure in this House, when there is not time for a debate to be completed, that it should be adjourned. There is an important debate at the next sitting, and therefore the proposal is to adjourn this debate until later. The only alternative would be for Lord Vansittart to make his speech to-day, and nobody else would be able to get in except the spokesman of the Government, which would be unsatisfactory when there are many other Peers who wish to speak.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYMy Lords, it appears to be agreed that the sittings of the House should terminate at a certain time each day. That seems to cut really across the debates and the freedom of this House. I hope that in the longer days the House may sit for a longer time than it has been sitting up to now. In the House of Commons one got used to sitting for a great many hours, and I do not think the sittings of this House impose any undue pressure on its members. It has to be remembered that this debate may go on for a long time, in which case we might get through a portion of the debate to-day, in addition to the speech by Lord Vansittart, and take the rest of the speeches on a subsequent day. It seems to me artificial that only the one speech should be delivered to-day, and the debate then come to an abrupt end.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNEThe noble Marquess was not present when we discussed this subject. Owing to existing circumstances, it is a great inconvenience to many noble Lords when the House sits late, and therefore an arrangement has been reached. There is no fixed limitation—it is purely a matter of convenience—but I understand most noble Lords consider that it is for the convenience of the House that we should adjourn early. Therefore I propose that Lord Vansittart, who is prepared to make his speech, should be allowed to start the debate, and the whole of the rest of the 1064 debate should be taken on a later day. I should have thought that was for the convenience of the House as a whole.
§ LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDEMy Lords, there are several noble Lords who are prepared to make their speeches to-night. We ought to have a clearer definition of what the expression "at this late hour" means. One day it seems to mean one time and another day another time, and it is very difficult to make one's arrangements.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNEThe definition of "late hour" is an hour which is too late for most of your Lordships. As I say, in war-time and in conditions under which people have to live, it has not been found convenient for this House to sit late, and I, as Leader, have to take account of that fact. I have consulted this House on that subject quite recently, and the distinct impression I got was that your Lord ships did not wish to sit to a late hour. Therefore I suggest that it is for your Lordships' convenience that we should begin the debate by allowing Lord Vansittart to make his speech and then adjourn, and that the rest of the debate and the reply of the Government should come on another day. That is not an unusual procedure. I have known debates adjourned several times since I have been in this House—and that is only a short time—and I am convinced that what I have suggested is the most satisfactory arrangement.
§ LORD ARNOLDCan the noble Lord give us any precedent for the mover of a Motion only making his speech and then the House adjourning?
VISCOUNT CRANBORNEIt is not a question of whether the mover of the Motion makes his speech, but it is a question of the time at which the mover of the Motion finishes his speech.
§ VISCOUNT SAMUELMay I suggest that we should wait to see at what time the mover of the Motion has finished his speech, and whether there will then be time for a continuation of the debate? Is it necessary to decide now what should take place perhaps an hour hence?
VISCOUNT CRANBORNEI have consulted the convenience of several noble Lords who want to speak and I understand that this is the most satisfactory 1065 arrangement from their point of view. I suggest, therefore, that we had better stay by that arrangement. There is really nothing new about it. As I said the House could have a later sitting and give a full day to this subject. There is nothing else on the Paper to prevent that, and whether you have one speech or two speeches this evening will not make much difference.