Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell]

We have got through a very good portion of Government business to-day, and I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury will say that we have been unduly factious in our opposition. We have assisted the Government in what we recognise to be necessary Bills. At the end of Government Measures there were two or three Private Members' Bills on the Paper. It is generally recognised in this House that Friday, unless it is required for Government business, is a Private Members' day.

Commander EYRES MONSELL indicated dissent.

I said when it is not required for Government business. It is recognised that on Friday an opportunity is given for private Members, and such an opportunity now presents itself. It would be much better to give hon. Members an opportunity of placing before the House their views on matters which do not happen to be Government business The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury raised no objection to facilities being given for a Private Member's Bill, the Protection of Animals Bill, the Debate on which the House has decided to adjourn. But immediately the figures of the Division were announced, adjourning the Debate on that Bill, the Government bring forward a, Motion for the Adjournment of the House. I think it is rather hard lines on other private Members whose Bills follow. I hope that as far as possible—and I ask hon. Members to join me in this view—on. a day like this, when time permits, opportunity should be given for private Members to have a chance of discussing their Bills.

I think there is a misunderstanding on the part of the hon. Member. On this occasion I acted through the usual channels and approached the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury to know whether he would have any objection to Order No. 17, the Protection of Animals Bill, being discussed, provided that the other business went through in reasonable time. That was done in consultation with the right hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson) and the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh, (Mr. W. Graham), who at that time were the only right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench. They agreed to that course. Therefore, it is not fair to say that this arrangement was not fully discussed and arrived at. I should have been as anxious as anyone to see the next two Orders taken—in fact, my name is on the back of the Bill which stands at No. 18 on the Order Paper—Employment of Disabled Ex-Service Men Bill, and has done for three years. I am very sorry that it cannot be discussed, but a bargain is a bargain, and, as it was made, I am going to advice my friends to keep to it.

These bargains are becoming a little trying, particularly when they are made by such an entirely unofficial person as the hon. and gallant Member (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy).

I happen to have been the acting emissary, but I acted in full co-operation with the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins) and the hon. and gallant Member for Montrose (Sir R. Hutchison), two "Whips of my party.

It will be a very difficult thing if these usual channels are going to begin to flow in unusual places. I wish as much as anyone to preserve a reputation for a high standard of honour. But it is going to be very difficult to be chasing round all the various corners to which we are supposed to go in these days. I was not interested in the Protection of Animals Bill, or in the Employment of Disabled Ex-Service Men Bill, but I was keenly interested in the Trusts and Combines Bill, which is a matter of vital importance, and I think that the House, if it had time, might reasonably have devoted a half-hour to its further discussion and tried to carry it a stage farther. I regret very much that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury has moved the Adjournment, and I hope that the House will not accept the Motion.

Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."

The House divided: Ayes, 92; Noes, 36.