The House is aware that we have fixed 8.15 for discussion of the Motion which the hon. and gallant Member for Finsbury (Lieut.-Colonel Archer-Shee) has been given leave to move; but on reflection I think I ought to inform the House that I have come to the opinion that I was wrong in accepting that Motion. When the hon. and gallant Member rose to ask leave to move the Adjournment, I considered in my mind the points which were involved in Standing Order 10, namely, whether the Motion was for the purpose of discussing a definite matter: I thought the matter was definite; whether it was urgent: I thought it was urgent, I thought it was a public matter, and I thought it was an important matter. Therefore I accepted it. Perhaps, also, I was moved with some indignation at the character of the attack and the nature of the attack which has been made upon certain Members of the House; but I confess that I had not in my mind at the moment the rulings which have been given on former occasions that Motions for the Adjournment under Standing Order 10 must have some relation to the conduct or the default of the Government, and must be in the nature of criticism of the Government, either for having done some action or for having omitted to do some action which was urgently necessary at the [Mr. Speaker.] moment. The Motion of which the hon. and gallant Gentleman gave notice, namely: To call attention to the articles of a scandalous nature which have appeared in the 'Daily Mail' and other papers relating to the conduct and character of certain Members of this House, does not affect the Government, and whatever may be the decision of the House, either in adjourning or refusing to adjourn, the action of the Government is not in issue at all. Therefore, I do not think that the Motion can properly be made. It raises a false issue. Hon. Members when asked to vote Aye or No on the Motion for the Adjournment, would be asked to pronounce upon some question that would leave the Government quite intact, and, indeed, the Government would not necessarily take any part in the discussion of that question. To that extent the Motion raises a false issue.

I must again confess that I was wrong in accepting the Motion. At the same time I go further and say that the House, by a very large number of Members having risen in their places, has condoned my error, and the House having fixed 8.15 for a discussion of this matter, I do not think that I should be justified in declining to call upon the hon. and gallant Member to move his Motion. I will go one step further, and after what I have said with regard to the effect of the Motion, and the fact that it has no relation to the Government and that it could have no general effect, and that we cannot upon a Motion for Adjournment discuss Questions of Privilege, I would appeal to the hon. and gallant Member under these circumstances, I would ask him, however strongly he may feel upon the matter, whether he would not consider the inadvisability of proceeding any further with his Motion now?

Of course, Sir, after what you have said and the appeal you have made to me and to the House in general upon this subject, I will not attempt to move the Motion which stands in my name.

As one of the Members of this House of whom it has been alleged that I have seen "a red light," may I ask if there is any means by which Members of this House can justify themselves in this House for the position they have adopted. Is there any means by which we can express our reasons for giving our votes in this House and jus tifying the position which we took up on the occasion in question?

I put it to the hon. Member whether it is really desirable or necessary that any hon. Member whenever he is attacked in the Press should seek to justify his position in this House. His conduct here is open and well known to his colleagues. He owes a duty to them and to the House, and I would venture very humbly to suggest that if every hon. Member who is criticised or attacked in the Press thinks it necessary to get up in this House and to apologise or explain or exculpate himself or defend his opinion there will be very little time left for Public Business.

Mr. J. JONES:

May I be allowed, Mr. Speaker, to propose a Vote of Thanks to Lord Northcliffc and his papers?

The hon. Member must give notice of it in the ordinary way.

On a point of Order. I do not want in any way to traverse your advice to the hon. and gallant Member for Finsbury, or in any way to remark on your present ruling, Mr. Speaker, but may I put this point very briefly to you?

The hon. and gallant Member for Finsbury not having moved his Motion, I do not see what question can arise.

Will you permit me to put a question? I take it that it is agreed that the matter of Adjournment is a matter for the House entirely, and I think you recognised that yourself in saying that the House had condoned what you called your error by its vote to-day. Under these circumstances the motion is not proceeded with; and on a previous occasion, notably on the 10th May, 1916, a Motion for the Adjournment of the House for which leave had been obtained was not moved because the Government had agreed to afford facilities for a Motion on the same subject on the following day. You have ruled that this is a matter that does not concern the Government, but I am going to put it to you that this is a matter which does concern the Government, that this is a matter of criticism of the Government and of an attack on the Government for not having exercised their powers under the Defence of the Realm Act, and other emergency legislation which is on the Statute Book, and which is acted on in other cases and in other countries.

There is not a word about that in the Motion. The Motion is: Articles of a scandalous nature which have appeared in the 'Daily Mail' and other papers relating to the conduct and character of certain Members of this House. There is nothing relating to the Government in that.

Well, Sir—

The hon. and gallant Member for Finsbury not having proceeded with his Motion, there is nothing now before the House.

Mr. J. JONES:

Who has brought him to heel?