in rising to move—

"That the House do meet on Tuesday and Friday at Two o'clock. That the principal business at such Morning Sittings shall be Financial Business and proceedings on the Introduction and First Readings of Bills; and that the provisions of Standing Order 56 be extended to such Sittings,"

said: I do not think it will be necessary to recommend the first Resolution which I have to move, except in a very few words, for the necessity under which we are for increasing the amount of time available for passing Votes in Supply must, I think, be evident to anyone who knows the statutory obligation under which we are to deal with the Supplementary and other Estimates before the end of the financial year, and who will consult the almanac as to the number of Government days available before that date. Monday, 21st March, is, I believe, the last day upon which the Appropriation Act can be introduced, and before 21st March there are only four Government nights, as things stand at present, on which Supply can be taken—next Monday and Thursday, and Monday and Thursday in the week following. In those four days we have to deal, in the first place, with Supplementary Estimates. Supplementary Estimates are in this condition—there are 26 Votes in all, and of these 26 Votes, eight, I think, and eight only, have been passed. It is, therefore, evident that by far the larger number remain to be dealt with; nor are those that remain, so far as I can make out, of a non-controversial character. We have the Local Taxation Relief (Scotland) Bill. I should have thought that after the very full discussion of this question the other night, we might perhaps be spared a very long discussion. But rumours have reached my ear that certain Scotch Members desire to express their opinion upon that question. Some time must be occupied before the House can conclude with the Supplementary Estimates; but in addition to the Supplementary Estimates there are the Army and Navy Votes to be got through. The first Army Vote and the first Navy Vote have to be got through with, and we also require to take a Vote on Account. I think, therefore, it is perfectly clear, from a very simple arithmetical calculation, that Her Majesty's Government, if they gave all the time that would be at their disposal if the Standing Orders were left unaltered—it would be quite impossible for us, before the 21st of March, to have dealt with all the financial business, by which is meant Votes in Committee of Supply, the Report of Supply, the Appropriation Bill, and other matters of that kind. The House will notice that, in addition to the financial business, reference is made to the introduction and First Readings of Bills. The House knows that already the Government have begun, so to speak, more than one important measure. The passion for discussing measures before they are seen appears to be growing in certain portions of the House; and though I am far, on this occasion, from desiring to raise any question of debate, the fact at all events will be admitted that it is highly inconvenient, both in the point of view of Members of the House who are anxious to acquaint themselves with the real provisions contained in Government measures, and also inconvenient to the outside public, who are anxious to know what the proposals are, that these Bills should be suspended, that they should not be before Members and before the country, and that we should therefore be deprived of such advantage as may result, at later stages of the Bills, of hearing the criticisms passed upon them. There is a Bill dealing with the Scotch Local Fee Grant. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland has a Bill for providing Assisted Education and other purposes in Ireland; and there is a Bill which I endeavoured to introduce on a previous occasion with regard to Private Bill Legislation in Scotland and Ireland. I think it is in the highest degree desirable that these Bills should be before the country. They cannot be before the country unless the House consents to extend the time at our disposal, and therefore I think it will be admitted on all sides that it is not merely for the convenience of the Government, but for the convenience of all parties, that the full particulars of these measures should be printed and circulated as soon as possible. I do not know that it is necessary to add anything to what I have already said in support of this Resolution. It appears to me that when we compare our position on the 3rd of March this year with what it was on the 3rd of March last year the necessity will become very obvious. On the 3rd of March last year the Irish Land Purchase Bill and another important Bill dealing with the Land Commission in Ireland had been read a second time, and the Tithes Bill read a third time.

Before Christmas.

I do not raise any complaint against the House. I do not say that the Government think themselves ill-used by the House because our business is not so far advanced; but I only point to the matter of fact that it is not so far advanced, and that, therefore, some measure of this kind is necessary. I hope the House will give us the modest powers we ask without any very prolonged debate. Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That the House do meet on Thursday and Friday at Two o'clock. That the principal business at such Morning Sittings shall be Financial Business and proceedings on the Introduction and First Readings of Bills; and that the provisions of Standing Order 56 be extended to such sittings."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

Sir, I would observe that the right hon. Gentleman has built up a very wide proposal upon an extremely narrow basis. For this is, as I think the House will admit, a very wide proposal. It is a proposal made on the 3rd of March, Parliament having only met on the 9th of February; it is a proposal now to give away the whole of the Tuesdays and Fridays for the entire Session of Parliament.

So far as Morning Sittings are concerned.

Exactly so; so far as Morning Sittings are concerned. I think that is a very wide and large proposal to be made on the 3rd of March. It was made on the 16th of March last year, and made on the 16th of March with the observation made by the late Leader of the House that the 16th of March did not mean last year the same as it would have meant in ordinary years, because the Parliament had met, so as to advance the Business of the Session, five weeks earlier—by meeting before Christmas—five weeks earlier than it usually meets, and because he hoped, to use his own language, "to have the time for proroguing the House many weeks before the usual time—in fact, in July." But I need hardly remind the House that that benevolent anticipation was not realised. Now, the right hon. Gentleman having made this broad proposition—for it is a very broad proposition, and it means in fact, with an exception of a very insignificant degree, the giving up of the Tuesdays and Fridays altogether, from the beginning of the year to the close, which I think justifies me in calling it a broad proposition—he has confined the proof of the necessity almost, entirely to matters connected with the Appropriation Bill of the present year, which, as he said himself in the course of his argument, runs until the 23rd of March and then entirely lapses. I will not cavil upon small points. The right hon. Gentleman also referred very properly to the introduction of Bills and their First Reading; and it may be right—and is right—that the Government should have every facility for placing its measures before the country. And, moreover, I will make a further concession, which the right hon. Gentleman might have asked for in the argument of his speech, but did not ask. I think it is desirable that some progress should be made on the Miscellaneous Estimates for the year, before Easter; and, therefore, it is not that I am disposed to quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman so far as regards a moderate and limited proposition. If he were content to limit his Motion until the time of Easter in the circumstances which he stated I should say that a fair case, upon equitable grounds, existed for agreeing to it. But what I wish to point out is this—I am not giving an absolute opinion upon it; but I am, I think, justified in the circumstance that the question of the surrender of the Tuesdays and Fridays, so far as Morning Sittings are concerned, from the beginning of the Session practically to the end, is a very large and serious question; and I would not say that the Government may not be justified in raising that question—possibly it may be so. There is great inconvenience in the very prolonged Sittings of this House, and it is extremely desirable to adopt some measure for getting more forward in Supply in the early and middle part of the year than the right hon. Gentleman has been enabled to do; and, therefore, I do not want to give a deliberate consideration to a question of that kind, if it has been already considered; but it is a very serious question, and it is quite evident that the speech which we have just heard from the right hon. Gentleman, which refers only to the space of a very few days or weeks, does not lay down sufficient to warrant a proceeding which, if adopted by the House, would form an absolute precedent for years for the entire abandonment of a large portion of Tuesdays and Fridays now enjoyed by private Members. Well, Sir, I wish to make two bye-observations—one is that the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, relating to open spaces in Scotland, stands, I believe, for tomorrow night, and it is probable that he would be the first victim offered up in order to meet the rather voracious appetites and demands of the Government; but my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce) has had the honour, or infelicity, of being made a victim on former occasions, and has become rather distinguished or conspicuous in that character. I will not then say that this observation is a sufficient reason of itself, but a reason of itself, why no concession should be made to the Government in this matter; but I think it may fairly be asked that if this Motion, or any portion of this Motion, should be passed, the Government will do what they can to expedite matters, so that this Debate may be closed to-morrow evening. I rather think that a fair demand which the House will concede. Then I wish to comment a little upon the phraseology which has been used. First of all, I do not feel entirely comfortable to have the phrase "principal business" in this connection. I know it is not absolutely new. It has been invented, I know, by the present Government. Very many on that side of the House regard it, no doubt, with respect. The critical faculty need hardly be so entirely silent on this side of the House, and, taken in the connection in which it here stands, it will be found not very easy to interpret. However, the right hon. Gentleman is so confident in the applicability of this phrase as a sound phrase of formal Parliamentary interpretation—I know very well as regards the conversational interpretation it is not difficult to interpret it—that for my part I shall be satisfied to leave him responsible for any public detriment that may thereby accrue. But with regard to another phrase I confess I am disposed to press a little further, and that is the phrase "financial business," because that is unquestionably a wide and large phrase. Take, for example, the excessively important measure that was introduced some years ago by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the reduction of the National Debt. That was financial business undoubtedly; and, at the same time, I think, if we are to maintain the distinction between Morning Sittings and Evening Sittings—if we hold that there are certain subjects of primary importance that ought not to be taken at Morning Sittings—such a Bill as that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought not to be introduced in a Morning Sitting. Or take another, the Budget for the year. Certainly I think that is financial business, and on no occasion has the Budget been introduced at such an hour of the day; and so long as the distinction is maintained I think we ought not to regard the Budget as one of the subjects that should be taken in a Morning Sitting. With regard to the Army and Navy Estimates, I believe, by fixed usage, they are retained for the Evening Sittings. I mean to say the first portion—the introduction to the main subjects. Therefore I doubt very much whether the phrase "financial business" is a safe phrase to adopt in the present Motion. At the same time it is not for me to undertake to dictate or advise the Government as to the particular phraseology they propose to adopt. But I hope the House will be able to adopt some expression other than this, which I have a little endeavoured to canvass. But I must confess that, coming to the substance of the subject-matter, I do say that this question is an extremely important question, and a very broad proposition if it is to be interpreted in the sense I have attached to it—namely, to give up from the beginning to the end of the Session, Morning Sittings on Tuesdays and Fridays, the time that private Members now enjoy. As it is a matter of very great importance, I think we ought to understand that if a proposition of this kind is made—for purposes which may or may not be adequate—we are making a very large and permanent alteration in the division of the time of the House between the Government and independent Members. That is not a matter that ought to pass lightly, without notice, or without a notice much more extended than is usually given to propositions of this kind, because this would really come to mean a distinct change of system in the House. What I have to say is this: that although the absolute needs of the Government only extend to the 21st of March, yet, viewing the desirability of the introduction of Bills, and the convenience of making an advance with the miscellaneous Estimates of the year, which we are all disposed, I think, to give a more forward place than they have lately enjoyed, so far as the time at our disposal is concerned, I should be quite ready to agree to a Motion of this kind. Beyond that I could not really, for one, consent to go. I do not wish to do anything inconvenient in form, but in case the Government wish to introduce any change of language into the Resolution, I should be disposed before sitting down to propose to insert the words "until Easter" in the early part of the Motion—that is to say, "That the House do meet on Tuesday and Friday at 2 o'clock until Easter,. &c." I hope this will meet with acceptance by the Government. My contention is simply this: that a permanent change in the allocation of time between the Government and the independent portion of the House is a question of great importance which ought to be largely considered with full notice to all concerned, and ought not to be disposed of as if it were a matter merely formal and subsidiary. Amendment made, by inserting after the first word "That," the words "until Easter." —(Mr. Gladstone.)

Perhaps it would be convenient for the House if I at once stated that I am quite ready to adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, provided it is understood that, should the course of Business require it, I am to be at liberty to make any other provision for the dispatch of Business which the necessities of the day may dictate. With regard to the other point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, as to the interpretation of the somewhat novel phrase "financial business," perhaps it may be convenient for the House if I were to ask you, Sir, what interpretation should be put upon the phrase "financial business," before it is adopted?

I think it is rather a matter for the House itself. But looking at the words which are used, I should say they included Supply, the Report of Supply, and the Ways and Means Bill; and unless a limitation "until Easter" is introduced into the proposition, it will, of course, apply to the Budget. That would be the natural interpretation I should be disposed to put upon it; but it is a matter for the House, and I am not the arbiter of the question.

My recollection is that the phrase used on former occasions was, "Bills that had their origin in Committee of Supply," or some such phrase.

And the Scotch Bill.

I do not mean this Session. Formerly there have been Resolutions to that effect which defined Financial Bills as Bills which had their origin in Committee of Supply, and would include Committee of Supply, Ways and Means, and Bills of that description.

I confess I always look with a certain amount of doubt and suspicion upon any arrangement, whether public or private, in regard to the Business of this House come to between the two Front Benches, because we always find that there is a tendency on the part of all whom I may term official Members, to squeeze out us poor unfortunate, independent Members on this side of the House. But I confess that as I listened to what fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian, I should think there was a considerable amount of reason in what he said in giving this facility till Easter. But I must point out that the right hon. Gentleman appeared to be surprised at the action of the Government. I think the right hon. Gentleman will be more surprised when I tell him and explain to him what has been the action of the Government before and during the Session; for it seems to me that the Government, almost by design, are using all their powers to put off legislation on their own Bills. What happened on the Address? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian has frequently had occasion to move the Address on the Queen's Speech. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman ever urged discussion on these occasions. In fact, I remember that the right hon. Gentleman, and indeed every other Gentleman who held the position of Leader of the House, always somewhat deprecated discussion on that occasion. Well, the right hon. Gentleman will be surprised to hear that the First Lord of the Treasury protested against our not discussing the whole question of Egypt; and then, as if that was not sufficient, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, the Gentleman who is one of the dual control in this House, also deprecated it. I felt very much inclined to accept the challenge.

I never referred to the question of Egypt at all. But I must say that I felt the greatest satisfaction, and even the greatest surprise, that it was not discussed.

When an Irishman trails his coat in a fair he does not ask anyone to tread on it, but he feels surprised if no one does so. But the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) went even further. He expressed surprise that Members sitting upon that Bench with him and divided in opinions from him did not bring forward a species of counter Address to Her Majesty, stating all they contemplated doing if they got a majority at the next General Election with regard to Ireland. We on this side of the House deprecated these attempts to stave off Public Business, and thanks to our reticence and to the great sorrow of Her Majesty's Government we did not pause a very long time on the Debate on the Address. Then the right hon. Gentleman introduced a Bill he called the Local Government (Ireland) Bill. He introduced it in a sort of way that he did not approve of the Bill himself; that it was a sort of Liberal Unionist Bill; that he was obliged to bring it in, and made a lengthened speech; but certainly it was not a speech that I think would be likely to conduce to the passing of that Bill, or lead anyone to suppose that the right hon. Gentleman intended to persevere with his Bill. Then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian will be still more surprised to hear that the Leader of the House allowed a Bill to be introduced in regard to Scotland, that after four or five hours had been spent in discussion upon this Bill the Leader of the House got up and explained that a mistake had been made, that there was no right to bring in the Bill until assent had been given in Committee, and, therefore, the whole proceeding would have to be commenced from the beginning. I wish to point out this, therefore, that if there is any difficulty in regard to Public Business, it may be that the House will endeavour to help the right hon. Gentleman out of his difficulties, but they have all occurred owing to the right hon. Gentleman, and his difficulties would have been much greater if we had accepted his challenge and the challenge of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham on the Address. Now, I will tell the right hon. Gentleman why he gets into difficulties, and what feeling a great many Gentlemen have in regard to this matter. We want to know when the Session is going to end. We know perfectly well that this Parliament has attained its majority; we know that it cannot last very long—("No, no")—and we rather suspect that all these endeavours to provoke us into discussion is an attempt to drag matters on until either the hay harvest or the corn harvest, because the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends opposite do not seem to have that confidence in the agricultural labourer that we have. They want to seize the opportunity when this man to whom they have given a vote—to whom a vote has been given, I should rather say—will not be able to exercise his privilege. If the right hon. Gentleman will get up and say, "We recognise fully that it is at least doubtful whether we continue to enjoy the confidence of the country; we think that it is our duty under these circumstances, and owing to the fact of this Parliament having lasted very long"—and in my opinion it has lasted a great deal too long—"we think it is our duty to seize the earliest opportunity when the greatest number of the electors will be on the register in order to consult the country whether they have confidence in us or not." If the right hon. Gentleman would get up and say, "I have had my little joke about this Local Government Bill. I had not the slightest notion of bringing it in. I should rather not have been forced into bringing it in by the right hon. Gentleman opposite" (Mr. J. Chamberlain). If the right hon. Gentleman were to assure the House, as soon as these Bills he referred to are introduced, and as soon as the Supplementary Estimates and the Vote on Account are carried, he would go to the country, I can assure him that he will receive every facility on the part of Members sitting on this side of the House to expedite Public Business. We do not want to say offensive things to the right hon. Gentleman, but we think he and his Friends have thoroughly outstayed their welcome. As for the Business of this House, why, if the right hon. Gentleman were really to propose that the House should not meet at all, or should only meet once a week, I believe it would be for the benefit of the country. Why should we have all this legislation which is proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, without the right hon. Gentleman knowing whether he has the people of the country at his back? I hold any sort of legislation that takes place by a majority, which was brought together six years ago, to be contrary to the first principles of representative Government, and all the more that when the electors do get an opportunity they will seize it to try and convince the right hon. Gentleman that he and his Government have lost their confidence. Notwithstanding my distrust of the two Front Benches, if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian insists upon his Amendment with regard to Easter, we will not fight or quarrel about it. I should have thought the 30th March would have been preferable, but we certainly will contest to the last the monstrous proposal of the right hon. Gentleman to take Tuesdays and Fridays till the end of the Session. Such a proposal has never been made before, and will I trust be always resisted.

I wish to ask whether, in the event of the Motion being altered in the manner suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian, the First Lord of the Treasury will agree to give precedence to those Motions on the Paper for Tuesdays and Fridays after the Easter Recess? In regard to next Tuesday, some of us find ourselves in a position of extreme difficulty, although we are anxious to expedite the Business of the House. On Tuesday next there are four or five Motions down, two of them of importance. One has relation to Scotch fisheries, which several Members, representing Scotch constituencies, are anxious to discuss, and the other has reference to the larger question of arbitration with the United States of America. I have heard it stated that that is a question upon which you cannot very well get up the steam, but the steam has already been got up out of doors to a considerable extent, and by Tuesday next, if the Motion is discussed, there will he petitions representing nearly 1,300,000 of our countrymen, heartily endorsing the proposal for a Treaty of Arbitration. These petitions are signed, irrespective of Party politics, and in the face of this extraordinary expression of opinion, mainly from the industrial classes, I hope the Government will afford an opportunity of discussing so exceedingly important a question. If the right hon. Gentleman will give a guarantee that the Motions now standing on the Paper should have precedence after Easter, no difficulty whatever will be felt in passing this Resolution.

I wish, Sir, to endorse what has been stated by my hon. Friend. It is very hard that the time of private Members should be taken in this ruthless manner, and I think we should not be doing our duty if we did not express our strong opinion as to the bungle into which the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury has got the House over the Estimates. Our position does not arise from the Members of the House, but from the Members of the Government not making proper arrangements to get through the necessary Business before the close of the financial year. I hope the Government will make an exception in favour of the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Haggerston, which stands for next Tuesday. The industrial classes are looking forward to a discussion on that Motion with great and deepening interest.

I rise to call attention to one important point, namely, the Motion standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Kerry for Friday the 28th of March, affirming the necessity of the compulsory sale of land to occupying tenants in Ireland. This question, always important, has become urgent since the failure of the Land Purchase Act last year. If this Motion be carried without exception, my hon. Friend will be confined within three hours for the discussion of a question of the greatest magnitude, instead of being allowed seven hours. The interest in Ireland on this question is such that we cannot consent to abandon our rights, and I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he would do well to agree to let us have this particular day out of the considerable number of Tuesdays and Fridays intervening between this and Easter. By the 29th March the Appropriation Bill will have left this House. The only matters remaining will be the introduction of Bills, and I do not think he seriously suggests that the introduction of Bills will be then proceeding. I would, therefore, urge that as it will not be necessary, either for the purpose of financial Business or for the introduction of Bills, for him to take the 29th March, he should allow us to have that day. In order to regularise the proceeding I beg to move, after the word "Friday," to insert these words "except Tuesday, 29th March."

There is already a Motion before the House to restrict the operation of this Resolution until Easter, and that Resolution I will put from the Chair. Question put, and agreed to.

Then, Sir, I will propose that after the word "Friday," in the second line, the words "except Tuesday the 29th March" be inserted. Amendment proposed. after the word "Friday," to insert the words "except on Tuesday, the 29th March." — (Mr. Sexton.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

I think the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment will feel it is one the Government can hardly accept. The two hon. Gentlemen who preceded him each made eloquent appeals in favour of Motions standing in their names, and if the Government make an exception in favour of one Member they cannot avoid extending the same Parliamentary privilege to others. The hon. Gentleman has told us that the Motion standing for the 29th March in the name of the hon. Member for Kerry is a very important Motion. I admit that; but the hon. Gentleman is aware that this question has been brought before us frequently last Session as well as this, and is not new to the House. Therefore, although I fully admit the importance of the proposition the hon. Gentleman asks us to accept, I do not think it would be possible to make in favour of that Motion any special claim that would not equally apply to Motions standing in the name of other Gentlemen. I hope the hon. Gentleman will be content with the protest he has made, and will not divide the House on his Amendment.

I think the better plan would be to strike out the word "Tuesdays," and to give the whole of Fridays to the Government, and I also think that the reference to Standing Order 26 should be struck out. The result would be to give us six hours on Tuesday evenings, which would be better than the risk of three hours on Tuesdays and Fridays. It would certainly give private Members some little time for the discussion of questions in which they are interested. The Government Motion practically means that for the remainder of the Session they will take Tuesdays and Fridays to themselves, and I do not think the three hours they propose to give us each night are worth having. I would rather give them the whole time on Friday.

This Motion is brought forward at an unusually early period of the Session; it shows the extreme inconvenience of the way in which Business is being done in this House. We have been told over and over again that Irish and Scotch Business blocks the way, but here we are, without violently contentious Business being introduced, in a position this Session which is worse than ever has been the case before. The reason we ask that the 29th March should be exempted is that a Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Kerry, and relating to the compulsory sale of land in Ireland, should be discussed. Now the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House used this extreme argument. He said that this subject of first-class importance had been brought before the House before. We all know that subjects of great importance are brought forward year after year in this very way, and it is necessary to repeat and enforce these arguments before any result accrues; therefore there is no force in that argument of the right hon. Gentlemen. The additional ground for the discussion of the Motion of my hon. Friend is the failure of the Land Purchase Act. It has not worked so rapidly or so smoothly as the Ashbourne Act. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot see his way to exempt the 29th March, I would suggest these alternatives: first, he may promise my hon. Friend the Member for Kerry some day for discussion after Easter; or, if he cannot do that, he might accept the proposition of the Member for Caithness and take Fridays, leaving the Tuesdays open; or, on the other hand, he might at least agree that the discussion of this Motion should be taken on Tuesday 29th March, and allow it to go on until it was fairly exhausted, not enforcing the 12 o'clock Rule. I would earnestly recommend the right hon. Gentleman to take one or other of these courses. Before sitting down, I would call attention to the fact that the hon. Member for South Tyrone is not in his place to assist us on a question in which he professes to be so much interested.

My hon. Friends are asking for special exceptions for this question relating to Ireland. I think we may fairly claim that the equality of which they speak should extend to Members of this House generally. I do not think any fair survey of what has already taken place this Session would lead to any other conclusion than that the course of affairs has tended very much in favour of the discussion of Irish questions, which have shut up, to a large extent, the discussion of English questions. We have discussed many Irish subjects—the Belfast lunatics among them. For questions connected with Ireland they have had in discussion their full share, and therefore I contend that we should have more time rather than the Irish Members who have already occupied much time. As to the Amendment, the specific reason why I understand my hon. Friend to desire this exception is to discuss that grand failure of last Session, the Land Purchase Bill, which confiscated a large sum of British money for the purpose of buying out the Irish landlords. We were afraid that the sop would work well among the tenants, and that our money would be spent very freely, but we are thankful to observe that that is not the case. We do not want our money spent in this way.

The hon. Member is discussing the merits of a particular Bill, and not the appropriation of a particular day.

I apologise to you, Sir, but I was mentioning that as a reason for disagreeing with my hon. Friends. I hope it may be possible to get rid of the necessity for a Division. If the Government will come forward and say, "We have done our work; we have outlived our time, and we are perfectly ready to go to the country as soon as possible," I am sure that not one of us would make any further objection to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman.

I would invite the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the suggestions made by my hon. Friends. Every one of these suggestions was fair, and the right hon. Gentleman might surely see his way to adopt at least one of them. We Irish Members are not responsible for any delay or muddling of the Business of this Session. The Business has been delayed and muddled by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House bringing for ward measures for Ireland which nobody in Ireland asked him for, and which, so far as I know, nobody in Ireland wants. Who in Ireland asks for such a measure of Local Self-Government as he has brought in, and who in Ireland is going to accept such a measure? We want to have nothing to do with it. Therefore, we are not responsible for the time of the House being taken up with measures which nobody wants, and nobody expects will be for the good of Ireland.

I am sure the hon. Member for East Mayo has no wish to be unfair to my hon. Friend the Member for South Tyrone in saying that he has gone away and left them in the lurch when he knew this question was coming on. My hon. Friend left London last night without having the slightest idea that the matter would be brought forward to-day, and the least he could have done before hastily condemning my hon. Friend would have been to give him the necessary notice. I agree with hon. Members that nothing would be more unsatisfactory than to have an incomplete discussion upon the Motion of the hon. Member for Kerry. I have a good deal of sympathy with that Resolution, and should be extremely glad if the Government could give way.

The House has been sitting for three weeks and has been counted out three times. I have seen the Government take their Whips—

Order! order! That has no reference to the Amendment before the House.

Where is the necessity for taking our time up to the 29th of March?

Order! order!

The Government have made out no case for taking all the time up to the 29th March.

The remarks of the hon. Member are not relevant.

I have no right again to address the House, but it would be only courteous if I said a word about the suggestions that have been made by hon. Members below the Gangway. The proposal of the hon. Member for West Belfast to except Tuesday, the 29th of March, from the Motion, and the other proposal that the Twelve o'clock Rule should be suspended in favour of a particular Member, are both open to a fatal objection. If the exception is made in the case of one private Member, it is quite impossible to refuse it in the case of others. I have admitted the importance of the Motion which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Kerry, but that must not be taken as an expression of opinion on my part that the Motions of other hon. Members are not worthy of as full and as long a discussion as the Motion of the hon. Member for Kerry. It would not be possible for the Government to make an exception to the 29th of March unless they were prepared to make the same exception for every other Tuesday before Easter.

The subject-matter of the Motion which my hon. Friend has given notice of for the 29th is one which will always be with the House while the Land Question in Ireland remains unsettled. I do not know how many weeks it has taken this House to pass the Land Purchase Act. Millions of money were placed at the disposal of the Purchase Commissioners to carry it out. Is all that to be allowed to run waste? Is all that time to be lost? The Purchase Act now is like a water-logged ship—it is useless; it has not been put in operation; and the Government themselves must see the desirability of arriving at some decision as to how it may be made workable. The discussion of a Motion like that of my hon. Friend the Member for Kerry would go, perhaps, some way towards enabling the Government to come to a decision as to how the difficulty may be met. If the Government agreed to the proposal of the hon. Member for West Belfast, they might find in the end that they would be expediting their own Business. The refusal of so moderate a request was not at all likely to cause this side of the House to be very friendly when appeals were made to them by the Government. I have often been struck with the callousness with which representations to the Government from these Benches have been met by Ministers as compared with the whining tone of appeal which Ministers are accustomed to adopt, when in moments of difficulty they find themselves pressed for time, and embarrassed by the Business before the House. Question put. The House divided: —Ayes 129 Noes 244. — (Div. List, No. 17.) Main Question, as amended, again proposed.

I think I may now press the First Lord of the Treasury, as the Government is going to take two days practically for Government Business, as to whether he can see his way to make some arrangement by which a very important question—the proposed Gresham University—may have time for discussion. This question is one that concerns a large number of people in London, and to begin to discuss it at 11 o'clock, or even later, would be a very serious drawback. Of course, under the Standing Orders, Debate can go on till any hour in the morning; but as a rule the House will not attend to a discussion after 1 o'clock—in fact the next Resolution shows that they do not care to discuss anything after 12 o'clock.

I feel fully justified, from the facts I have stated, in moving that Tuesday, the 8th of March, be exempted from the operation of the Rule.

The hon. Gentleman has already spoken on the Main Question.

I understood that I should be able to move this Amendment.

No; the hon. Member is precluded from so doing by having already spoken on the Main Question.

I should like to support the appeal of the hon. Member for Islington. The right hon. Gentleman often endeavours to conciliate the House. I think he should sometimes endeavour to conciliate the country as well. He knows from the importance and influential character of the deputation which waited on the Prime Minister to-day on this subject that the interest in this question is not confined to any one section of the House or to one school of politics. It is a non-political, non-party, and, I hope, non-sectarian question as well. There is a large portion of society interested in the progress of higher education who are alarmed lest a retrograde step should be taken in this matter. The crucial issue is now before us, and to say it is to be discussed by a weary House after 11 o'clock at night till 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning is really to make a mockery of it, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his position and accede to the appeal made to him from his own Party.

I rise to suggest one way in which this difficulty can be met. If the right hon. Gentleman will give us an assurance that the Charter shall not be submitted to Her Majesty until a satisfactory opportunity has been given to the House of discussing it, that will probably meet the views of hon. Members.

I am quite in accord with hon. Members who have spoken in thinking that the Government ought not to compel the House of Commons to discuss a question in which a large number of Members feel a very keen interest, under conditions which would render a fair discussion impossible. Of course, there might be a difference of opinion among hon. Members as to what constitutes fair discussion. But, at all events, I will say—though I cannot promise, cannot give a pledge to my hon. Friends that I will ask the House to adjourn Supply before 11 o'clock—I will not ask the House to sit till abnormal hours in the morning for the purpose of discussing the matter, nor would I endeavour to bring the Debate prematurely to a close if it were clearly the desire of the House to prolong it. Probably the discussion would be exhausted between 11 and 1, but if it were necessary that the Debate should be adjourned, I would consent to the Adjournment.

Will not the Debate terminate at 12 o'clock under the Standing Orders of the House?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not aware that these Charters laid on the Table of the House do not come under the Twelve O'clock Rule, and, therefore, I think the general pledge I have given to the House will gratify both my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen who have spoken on the other side of the House.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give two or three days' notice before the Indian Councils Bill is brought on?

Perhaps my right hon. Friend might be open to some compromise on this subject, which appears to be a subject of considerable interest, and obviously a hurried discussion in the small hours of the morning would hardly meet the requirements of the case. Can my right hon. Friend hold out any hope of this Motion being taken at 10 o'clock; it might then be disposed of by 12.

Between 10 and 12 is practically the same as between 11 and 1. Question put. The House divided:—Ayes 282; Noes 60.—(Div. List, No. 18.)

Mr. Speaker, I now beg to move the second Motion which stands in my name, and only preface it with this remark—that I gather from what has been said that in putting the Motion down on the Paper I am only carrying out the wish of hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House. It is not done so much—indeed, not at all—in the interests of the Government Business as to meet the convenience of the Members and of the officers of the House. The only difference between the Motion I have on the Paper and the Motion of last year is that the present Motion will make the Resolution a Standing Order, while the Resolution of last year was only a Sessional Order. I am inclined to think that the result of the experiment made last year is to create the conviction that the general convenience is best consulted by not continuing Debate until 1 o'clock, and hon. Members will perhaps agree that the modification made in the Rules last year should become part of the Standing Orders of the House. Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That the sitting of the House at Nine o'clock be held subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 1, which relate to the interruption of Business and the Adjournment of the House; that this Resolution be a Standing Order of the House; that Standing Order No. 8 be repealed." —(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

If you make it a Standing Order that the debate must terminate at 12 o'clock, a question can only have three hours' discussion. Private Members will only get three hours a night or six hours a week under the present form of the Resolution.

I am very pleased to find that the Twelve o'Clock Rule is to be adhered to on Tuesdays and Fridays. It is a great convenience to many hon. Members that contentious Business should not come on after 12 o'clock, as that enables them to catch their trains or or other conveyances.

I gather that the House is of the same mind as it was last year, and therefore I shall not say any word in support of the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, and still less in opposition to it, as I had the honour, last year, of acting with the Leader of the House in getting the change adopted for last Session. But I must say that there were two conditions attached by the House and accepted by the Leader of the House. The first was that it should be a Sessional Order; on that point I do not care to insist; but the other is a more important matter. The Government can, under the present Resolution, use Tuesdays and Fridays after the Morning Sittings for advancing Money Bills or Report of Supply. If the Government are willing to give an assurance that they will not use this hour, which private Members have surrendered, for the Business of Supply, I think the House will be prepared to accept the Resolution, probably without a Division.

I thought I did give that assurance in answer to a similar question, but I am quite willing to repeat it now.