P.M. Sees no Reason Why British Parliament Should Shorten Recess

Northern Advocate, 29 July 1939, Page 7

P.M. Sees no Reason Why British Parliament Should Shorten Recess

(Received 2.20 p.m.)

RUGBY, July 27. REPLYING TO Mil. ARTHUR GREENWOOD, IN THE HOUSE OF COM-

MONS, THE PRIME MINISTER, MR. CHAMBERLAIN, SAID THE!

| ADJOURNMENT OF PARLIAMENT FOR THE SUMMER RECESS WOULD j EE TAKEN ON FRIDAY OF NEXT WEEK. HE WOULD ; ANNOUNCE! 1 NEXT WEEK THE DATE FOR REASSEMBLY, AND HE INTIMATED THAT THE MOTION FOR THE SUMMER ADJOURNMENT WOULD CONTAIN i THE USUAL PROVISIONS FOR EARLIER RECALL OF PARLIAMENT IF i NECESSARY.

Mr. Greenwood asked if Mr. Chamberlain had given consideration to the suggestion that there should be regular meetings of the House during the recess, and that they should not disperse for a considerable period l in view of public anxiety over the international situation. The Prime Minister replied that it did not seem to him to be an advisable course to pursue, hut would he likely to keep the whole country in a state of anxiety.

Mr Greenwood suggested that, on®' the contrary, it would he more likely to give a feeling of satisfaction, and it would strengthen public opinion were it known that the House met from time to time.

Mr Chamberlain replied that this | was a matter of opinion, but his ! opinion was that the powers which ! the Government possessed were ; already sufficient. Liberal Parly’s Fears, | Sir Archibald Sinclair, leader of the j Liberal Party, said that, in view of the j possibility of grave events abroad, j surely it was undesirable that the j House should separate for any proj longed period, and, if the Prime Min- ; ister found himself unable to accept (the suggestion made by Mr Greenwood [ that the House should meet regularly j in the interval, would he, at any rate, agree that the House should not ad- [ journ for several weeks, but that it ! should adjourn for not more than a fortnight, or for three weeks at the most? Government’s Responsibility. Mr Chamberlain answered that he had no reason to suppose that, if grave events supervened, they should supervene in a fortnight or three weeks, or at any particular time.

The only reasonable or sensible course was that the Government, which had the responsibility, should watch the course of events, and the House might depend upon it that the Government would exercise its powers with a due sense of responsibility. Further questioned by Mr Greenwood, Mr Chamberlain said: “I do not want to tie myself down to the precise words of a pledge, but, broadly speaking, if the Government contemplates some departure in its foreign policy, and I understand it is the foreign policy which is in question, I think it would be an occasion for calling the House together.”