said the object of the hon. Member for the Ashford Division of Kent was to preserve the present arrangement, and to prevent any interference with the Wednesday sittings. The Government's method of conducting the debate was extraordinary. At the opening of the discussion on Tuesday it was generally agreed that the question was whether Private Members' Bills were to be taken on Wednesdays or Fridays. But a few minutes before midnight the First Lord interrupted to point out that the Amendment did not decide what business should be taken on Friday, but only whether Friday or Wednesday was to be the day of a 12 o'clock sitting. What was the object of allowing the debate to go on for seven or eight hours on a misunderstanding?

I deprecated discussing Friday at all in the preliminary discussion. As to the accusation that I have decided that the House is only debating on this question the hours of the Friday sitting, that decision is a question of order over which I have absolutely no control whatever.

said that the whole character of the debate would have been substantially altered, for every speech was delivered on the assumption that, if the 12 o'clock sitting were changed from Wednesday to Friday, private Bills now taken on Wednesday would in future be taken on Friday. In his opening statement the right hon. Gentleman had made that very plain. What were the words he used? He said the scheme would work automatically. The Monday morning and evening sittings would belong to the Government; on Tuesday the Government would have the morning sittings, and private Members the evening one; on Friday the same arrangement would obtain, while on Thursday the afternoon and evening would be devoted to Supply. Friday was to take the place now held by Wednesdays—Wednesday would, in fact, be transferred bodily to Friday.

That is the plan of the Government. But this question is in two parts; and I cannot compel the House to discuss the two parts together.

rejoined that that was what the House had been doing all through. It was impossible to discuss them separately. The whole attitude of the House to the Friday sitting might be changed if it were decided that Government business would be taken on Fridays. The Government ought to say what they meant to do. That was only a reasonable question to put to the right hon. Gentleman.

That depends on the House.

Does it? Will the right hon. Gentleman leave it to the House to decides.

The House always decides.

said that that was hardly a fair answer. The decision depended not upon the House but upon the Government, unless the right hon. Gentleman would leave the question open. The House was entitled to know what the intentions of the Government were. If this change were agreed to, what was to be the Government programme with regard to Fridays? That was an all-important question. If the right hon. Gentleman would give the House leave to vote freely in the matter, well and good, the House would decide the question; but they knew that the contrary would be the case, for according to the information he had received the Government Whips were putting more and more pressure on hon. Gentlemen in order to get the rules through in the shape in which the Government had submitted them. He ventured to assert that he was neither unreasonable, fractious, nor obstructive in insisting on having from the Government a plain statement as to what business would be taken if the House sat at noon on Fridays. So far as he was concerned he preferred the present arrangement. All the arguments up to the present time had been that the Wednesday to Friday change would facilitate Private Members' Bills, but if the Government were now going to make an attempt to get the Friday first and then shove the private Members on to an afternoon sitting on some other day and give Friday to Supply that would alter the attitude and the votes of many hon. Members. It was unreasonable to demand this now before the House knew exactly what the change involved.

Surely we have a right to know from the Leader of the House where we stand in this matter. The proposal is to alter the situation of Wednesday, and up to this time Wednesday has been appropriated to Private Members' Bills. Before this question is decided we ought to know what is to be substituted for Private Members' Bills for we have no information upon that subject.

I am doing my best to make it clear. We have told the House over and over again what our plan is. Our plan is that Private Members' Bills should be taken on Friday, but it is perfectly impossible and out of order, and out of the power of the Government to decide by this vote whether that plan is to be carried into effect completely or not. I explained the plan of the Government in the original speech I made.

Do I understand that the Government take their stand on their proposal that the time on Friday should be devoted to Private Members' Bills at a morning sitting, and to take Wednesday, which arises on this Amendment, for a morning and evening sitting to be devoted to Government business? Am I to understand that there is no alteration in the views of the Government upon that subject, and that that is the plan to which they intend to adhere? Am I right in that assumption?

That is our plan.

Then that alters the whole thing. We ought to have a clear understanding, and I must say that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman on the evening of the last discussion, and even to day, was very ambiguous. From the expression he has used he seems to still consider it a very doubtful matter what to do with Friday. I think we are entitled to know, if we give up Wednesday what private Members are to have, if they do not have Friday. The right hon. Gentleman says this may be decided when we come to Friday, but I contend that it ought to be decided before. We cannot really deal with this question of Wednesday, unless we have some tolerable certainty as to what will be substituted. I will ask the right hon. Gentleman, as he has put it as a questionable matter, if the House decides upon the Friday under those circumstances what will he do with Wednesday, and what substitute will be given, because we may have disposed of all the time beforehand. Supposing the House determines that Government business shall be taken on Friday there will be no time to substitute for that taken away from private Members on Wednesday. For my own part, I strongly adhere to the existing plan of the Wednesday. I think it is a very good thing to have a rest in the middle of the week, rather than have this change. I have a very strong opinion that the result of this Friday sitting will mean the loss of Friday altogether, and it will be regarded outside as a matter of giving less attention and less time to the work of the House of Commons, and as sacrificing business to private holidays. Therefore, so far from impressing the country with the idea that what we desire is to do more work, the impression produced will be exactly the opposite, for when they see that the House of Commons practically does not sit for any useful purpose on Fridays, as it used to sit before, they will think that we have been sacrificing the efficiency of the House of Commons to the convenience of hon. Members opposite. For these reasons I shall vote for the adherence to Wednesday as before.

said the answers given by the right hon. Gentleman had placed him in a con- siderable difficulty. He was greatly opposed to the idea of having Private Members' Bills taken at a morning sitting on Friday, because he was convinced that nothing but harm could result from that proposal. It was very easy to argue that the Second Readings would not be conclusive, but he felt that all hon. Members ought to do what they could to prevent the House of Commons obtaining still more the character of a mere academic debating society that it had at present. He was prepared to vote against the allocating of morning sittings on Fridays to Private Members' Bills. But he did not attach the same importance to there being a morning sitting on Friday and no evening sitting. He gathered that the Government had decided to make it a Government question whether they should have a morning sitting and an adjournment on Friday, but he earnestly asked the First Lord of the Treasury not to put any sort of pressure upon his supporters with regard to the taking of the morning sitting on Friday for Private Members' Bills. All that was fundamental in the new Rules he would Support, but the proposal before the House was a matter upon which each hon. Member was competent to form a sound judgment. The Government were under the impression that this proposal would be generally popular and attractive, and he did not blame them for adopting that supposition. When he first heard of it he thought himself that it seemed to be very attractive. Many other hon. Members had said that while at first they thought this change was a delightful proposal, the more they considered it the more they came to the conclusion that it would be derogatory to the efficiency of the House. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not think that he had the least desire to embarrass the Government, for that was the last thing he had in his mind. He understood the main purpose of the scheme was to increase the security and certainty of Government business, and, if possible, prevent private Members time from being gradually filched by the Government as had been the case in the past. To achieve those objects he would give the Government scheme as a whole his hearty support. He did, however, ask the First Lord of the Treasury to respect the deep and conscientious convictions of hon. Members when they said that if the Government were going to take Friday morning sittings for Private Members' Bills they would be doing something which might be very mischievous, and which would impair the popular credit of the House of Commons.

said if the First Lord of the Treasury would adopt the suggestion which had been made the Government would actually gain time, for they would be getting five and a half hours of Government time on Friday, whilst private Members would be sacrificing a certain amount of time in order to obtain an efficient debate upon an earlier day in the week. If private business commenced at two o'clock and the Government plan was adhered to, then under their proposal they would have four hours fifty minutes as against the five and a half hours which was suggested by the hon. Member opposite. If the suggestion of the hon. Member for Norwich was met, that the Government business should commence at three o'clock, the Government would have five and a half hours on Friday instead of a shorter period on an earlier day in the week. He thought that was an argument which the Government ought to consider.

said the strain of the work of the House was very great, particularly on the older Members. He asked whether the Government thought they would be able to get their supporters to come down to the House four nights running. They came on Monday and Tuesday, and when they got a holiday on Wednesday they were prepared to come on Thursday and Friday. While a loyal supporter of the Government, he could not help feeling that they should not insist on this proposal.

said the Government had put forward these proposals professedly with a view to the convenience of the House, and undoubtedly the House itself should be left free to decide on a matter relat- ing to its own convenience, and the performance of the work for which they were sent there. But the Government were going to put on Party pressure and employ the Party Whips in the matter, so that instead of consulting the convenience of the House they were, when it came to a division, going to consult their own convenience. It was not fair to him who certainly exercised a certain independence, and it was not fair to hon. Members behind who usually exercised less independence. He was not sure that this might not have an effect contrary to that which was expected, because hon Members were apt to resent this sort of dictation in a matter where they ought to be left free. When this proposal was made it was held forth that Members would probably be able to go away on Thursday and stay until Monday, certainly to go away from Friday until Monday. But he was glad to see that many hon. Members had come to the conclusion that although their own interests were worth something, they had higher and more imperative interests. They had to consult the interests of the country which they were sent here to look after. The more this proposal was looked at, the less it was liked. The more Members looked at it, the less disposed they were to sacrifice the business of the House to their own personal convenience. It was creditable that in spite of the tempting bait held out to them, there should be such a strong expression of opinion on both sides. This Wednesday question was, in his opinion, one with the Friday question, and it was for that reason that he put down an Amendment, which, however, he did not now intend to move. He asked the House to observe what the result would be if the proposed Rule were adopted. All those Members who did not feel so stron a sense of duty as to be obliged to remain on Friday would have gone away, and the House would be peopled by Members who wished to pass certain Bills, possibly by different sections of Members, each of which wished to pass their own Bill. He thought there would be a system of log-rolling, and one Member would say to another, "If you attend on my Friday to pass the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill, I will attend on your Friday to pass the Taxation of Land Values Bill." The Members who were interested in Supply alone would be away, and the zealots would be in full and uncontrolled possession of the House. They would have the most extraordinary Bills brought forward on Friday. By having these Bills on Wednesday, a counter - balance of attendance was secured, for Wednesday coming between two working days was not sufficient to tempt Members away to the country. The result was that they had a much more representative attendance in the House than they otherwise would have. But if they put work down for Friday, they would have none of that counterbalance which he had mentioned. He might be allowed to say that he was one of those who did not wholly neglect their business in this House, and that he undertook a considerable share of the work which preceded the meeting of the House. His case was this: Wednesday was invaluable to every Member of this House. On Monday and Tuesday they were engaged perhaps in strenuous work and strenuous speech in this House, possibly in the Committee stages of most important measures. Then came Wednesday, and they immediately had a feeling of relief. They were able to overlook the work done on Monday and Tuesday, and perhaps some of that done in the preceding week. It was the day when new ideas occurred to them in regard to measures, and they were able in that way sometimes to remove opposition and to arrange compromises. Wednesday, for the same reason, was invaluable to the Government when they were endeavouring to pass a difficult and contentious measure. The right hon. Gentleman knew that in passing a contentious measure, difficulties constantly arose, which required to be dealt with there and then if it was to go through. Wednesday was exactly the day when the ingenious compromise occurred to Ministers which enabled them to get their measures through. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT nodded assent.] He was glad the right hon. Gentleman opposite nodded assent, for nobody had ever had a more difficult Bill to pass through the House, a proposal which he brought forward being discussed for three months. Wednesday was what sailors called a "stand easy," but under the proposed arrangement there were to be two sittings that day. The more he looked at the new Rules, the more he was convinced that the present rules were the right ones, and that the present allocation of time was right. An adequate attendance was secured in the House on Wednesday to deal with the revolutionary proposals sometimes made from both sides of the House. He earnestly trusted that the Government would reconsider and abandon the proposal for altering the character of Wednesday.

said he was afraid the hon. Member for King's Lynn had thrown out some temptation to the Government to adhere to the proposal, because if he was deprived of Wednesday he would not have so much time for composing the strenuous speeches to which he had alluded. According to the hon. Member for Thirsk, who introduced this Rule, a large number of Members would go home or to business on Friday. The Leader of the House and the Colonial Secretary thought this would make the House more attractive to Gentlemen who had limited time. That was their reason for proposing the Rule. But if they made this change, questions of great importance would be debated in an attenuated House without sufficient logic and argument, and carried by small majorities, by no means representative of the House. Under such circumstances, the House would do nothing but lose in dignity.

asked the Leader of the House not to yield to the request of the hon. Member for King's Lynn and others in regard to the removal of what they called the pressure of the Government. If Government pressure was taken off on this particular point, it would be most unfair to a great number of Members on this side of the House who had supported the proposals of the Government on other particulars, though their predilections might not be in favour of them. This weighed with him more than any other proposal made by the Government. He had been in the House on probably more Wednesdays during the last six- teen years than most other Members; and he thought that the hon. Members for Ashford and Chelsea had on these occasions been conspicuous by their absence. It was notorious that the Wednesday Houses were extremely thin; and there was no reason to suppose that there would not be an adequate number of Members to debate any subjects coming on on Fridays. It was perfectly absurd to suppose that the mere transfer of private Members' business from Wednesday to Friday would work such a transformation that Private Members' Bills would be placed at a disadvantage. It had been urged by some Members that the Wednesday morning sitting was a great relief; but it would be nothing to the relief gained by having a reasonable dinner hour on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. He agreed with the First Lord of the Treasury that what was most convenient for the majority of the House tended to the advantage of public business. He had been sent there either to support the Government or the Opposition, and he was sure that nine Members out of ten had not been sent there to listen to or discuss Private Bills. He had spent many weary hours in opposing on Wednesdays legislation of a character which he thought extremely dangerous; and he supposed that in future he would have to do the same on Fridays. He would point out that all the dangers alleged to attach to the change of days were merely hypothetical; and he hoped the First Lord of the Treasury would adhere to the proposals he had put before the House, and that he would not yield to the demand made by the hon. Member for Chelsea to take off the pressure upon his followers.

said he could conscientiously give the proposals of the Government his hearty support, and for two reasons. First, because he thought they conformed to the general opinion of the majority of the House; and second, because he believed the change in both the hours and the days would tend to the efficiency of the House. Moreover, he frankly expressed his approval of the proposals for a more or less selfish reason, because, being a domestic man, he looked forward to spending four nights a week in the bosom of his family. Having settled days and hours for it, the work of the nation would be more efficiently discharged, because hitherto they had never known when to come down to the House, and tim was wasted by private business and Questions. A good deal had been said as to the new Rules depriving private Members of their opportunities of bringing in Bills, but during the twenty years he had been in the House, while the procedure had sometimes prevented private Members from accomplishing much useful work, it had also prevented them from doing a good deal of mischief. The hon. Member for Chelsea had said it would probably be better to give private Members another day than Friday, but he himself felt that if there was any important Bill on, there would be quite a large attendance of Members on that day. The Leader of the Opposition, with very bad taste, as he thought, insinuated that the chief part of these new Rules had been brought in for the benefit and convenience of what he called the "smart set" in the House. That example of bad taste had, he was glad to say, not been followed. The Government had consulted the convenience of the whole House, and not any particular section of it; and the fact that the hon. Member for Leicester was one of the warmest advocates of the proposal was the best answer to the Leader of the Opposition.

said that he was not a supporter of the Government. He, however, claimed to be loyal to his constituency, and, through them, to the public advantage. He might point out that if this Rule could be shown to afford more time to the Government for the transaction of public business, he should have felt inclined to support it. He wanted no repetition of the monstrous thing which happened last year, when no fewer than 70 Votes were passed in Supply without discussion. He did not believe that a single hour would be gained by the Rule, and he could not, therefore, support it.

scarcely thought that his right hon. friend who addressed the House a few moments before had helped the Government very much in this matter, when he put it that this was very largely a question of personal convenience and not a matter which, in the first instance, affected non-official Members. His right hon. friend had pressed the Leader of the House to use all his personal influence in forcing the House to a conclusion. Now, he thought the Leader of the House had been most considerate on that point, and had used no language which indicated any desire to bring undue pressure to bear on his supporters. Personally he thought it was his duty to exercise his individual judgment whatever his right hon. friend or his colleagues might think or do. At the same time he must differ from his right hon. friend with regret. He was, however, not sure that if all his right hon. friends his colleagues were polled individually on the matter there would be a consensus of opinion upon it. This was obviously a question which hon. Members must decide for themselves, and anyone with a spark of spirit in him would decide it for himself. He did not want to go over the ground as to the substitution of Friday for Wednesday for private Members business, but he thought that many considerations had been somewhat obscured in the discussion. The Friday sitting, as had been pointed out, would be very frequently taken in hand by the log-rollers of whom the hon. Member for King's Lynn had spoken. He thought, moreover, that four consecutive long nights would not redound to the output of useful work. Each night would be divided amongst different classes of business, and the system would be entirely changed. It would not be denied that the break in the week, which had become a matter of habit, was useful, and had better not be interfered with. It was impossible not to consider the allocation of the time of the House when discussing the question of the change from Wednesday to Friday, but he would not be in order in dealing with that in detail. His right hon. friend had, however, thrown out a hint that perhaps some other arrangement might be made for the business of unofficial Members, and he thought they ought to know what that arrangement was. The only practical question before the House was whether they were to give up Wednesday to the Government and whether Private Members' Bills should be taken on Friday. They should exercise their own individual judgment on it, and whatever might be thought on a particular Bench, he hoped the House of Commons would decide the matter for itself.

said the question was not in any sense political, and he hoped it would also be regarded as a non-Party one. As his hon. friend had said, their duty as Members of Parliament was to make their Rules efficient in order that they might be able to carry on the business of the House of Commons to the satisfaction of the public. The reason why a good many Members were naturally unwilling to agree to the proposed change was that they thought that the Government had already a very large share of the time of the House, and were, therefore, unwilling that anything should be done to limit the time which was now given to private Members for their Bills. He agreed that Friday would probably produce a thin House, and that it was very undesirable that these Bills should be relegated to such a House, as private Members would not have a fair chance of pressing their measures in a full House or of having a thorough and satisfactory discussion. He thought it would be difficult to have a satisfactory House on Friday. Up to 1880 the first Question put on Friday by the Speaker was, "That I do now leave the Chair," and on that Question private Members had a right to move Amendments similar to the present Tuesday Motions. It was found that private Members could not keep a satisfactory House on that day, and at times that they could not keep a House at all. An appeal was made to Mr. Gladstone, who was then Prime Minister, and he was asked whether the Government would keep a House on Friday. Mr. Gladstone said he thought it ought to be regarded as a Government day, and since then a House had been kept. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Antrim said that there was now an insufficient attendance on Wednesday, but if that were the case on Wednesday, which was between two full days, what would be the case on Friday? He put it to the Leader of the House that it was not desirable that the Government should do anything that would look like taking away important time from private Members, unless they were absolutely driven to it by some sudden and great emergency. There was another consideration why the House should retain Wednesday as it was, and that was that it was a most important break in the middle of the week. It was all very well to say that Members were only thinking of their own convenience. That was not the case on one side or the other. When he was Chairman of Committees he had a great deal of experience of morning and evening sittings, and he could assure the House that the break on Wednesday was of much importance to the House. It was of importance to hon. Members who attended to their duties, and was most important to the Chair and the officers of the House. In considering these questions, they ought never to put out of consideration the position of the Chair and the Officers of the House. The Speaker and Chairman had his mind constantly at a stretch, and he was really afraid that if they compelled either the Speaker or the Chairman to sit four nights in succession with four morning sittings, they would be casting an amount of labour on the Chair, which would cause a very considerable amount of fatigue.

It would not be for more than three days.

It is not the actual amount of time, but the time coming together.

The right hon. Gentleman said four days. It would be only three days.

There will be Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday.

Thursday will be for Supply.

said that he, as Chairman of Committees, had sat four days a week, and after Whitsuntide, when the Government took the time of the House and when an important Bill was in Committee, the Chairman would probably have to sit four days a week. Therefore, he thought that was a very unreasonable amount of labour to put on the Chair without a sufficient break in the middle of the week. If the Government had made up their minds to meet at twelve o'clock on Friday, he would suggest that the House should also meet at twelve o'clock on Wednesday. The Wednesday adjournment was so important that he hoped the House would not give it up, and he thought that very little harm would be done by meeting at noon on Wednesday as well as on Friday.

said that much had been said about preserving the rights of private Members, but as far as he could judge the sense of the constituencies now was, and increasingly so, that the private Member was doing the best service to his constituency, for he supported the party he was sent to support, and used such influence as was at his disposal to further the needs and objects, he was elected principally to serve. Speaking with little experience, the proposed change from Wednesday to Friday appeared to him to be eminently sensible. It appealed to him as being a businesslike proposal, and as one calculated to secure the better transaction of the important business which came before that assembly. The private convenience of individual Members was perhaps a minor argument, but it certainly was a convenience, that Members who were engaged in various public and private occupations at a distance from London should be able to get into the country on Friday night or Saturday morning, and to come into contact with their constituents during the progress of the session. While it might be inconvenient to some extent to hon. Members engaged in London, still the maximum convenience of the House should be considered with a view to the efficient discharge of the duties they had to perform. It was not conducive to the public interest that important estimates involving considerable expenditure should be considered at the fag end of the week. It was said that there would be a thin House on Friday for the consideration of the academic and obstruse questions brought forward by private Members; but a thin House was more favourable to a private Member than a full House if he wished to bring in a revolutionary measure, as there would be less opposition to cope with. He thought the term of membership would not be entirely futile for he supported the Government in proposals which were introduced, he believed, for the general convenience of the House.

I should like to interpose a word or two before the Leader of the House gives his opinion. I venture to suggest that there are two questions in this substitution of Friday for Wednesday, and that we cannot look at the question as a whole without having regard to both these considerations. The first consideration is the efficiency of the conduct of the business of the House, and the best mode of discharging that branch of our work, and the second is the convenience of the Members themselves. The first question we have to consider is, what will best promote the work of the House and the discharge of business, and I think we are entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman why the experience of fifty years is to be put on one side. If a system which, during the last half a century, has worked satisfactorily alike to the Government and unofficial Members is to be interfered with, what are we to gain by it? I have no sympathy with the opinions expressed in this debate as to the Wednesday sittings of the House being devoted to fanatics and faddists. If by that it is meant that there is to be no legislation at all by unofficial Members, that all legislation is to be confined to the Government, and that no unofficial Member may bring in a Bill at all, say so plainly, and let it be understood by the Members of this House and their constituents. But the history of the last fifty years disproves the force of that argument. Many of the most useful measures on the Statute - book have been introduced on their first initiation by private Members on a Wednesday. Some of the measures brought in on a Wednesday are among the most valuable on the Statute-book. Some of them have been discussed, though it was known they could not pass all their stages in the House, and public opinion has been educated and convinced. It will be a great loss to the country if these debates are done away with. Some one spoke in very contemptuous terms of yesterday's debate, but I think that debate was a credit to both sides of the House. The House approached the subject of the debate in a manner in which they ought to approach a great and difficult question, and a subject which some day or other some Government will have to take up. But it is asked: "Why should not this be done on a Friday?" Why not! For the simple reason that you will not get on Friday afternoon the same interest, the same debate, the same power, and the same effect on public opinion that you would have on Wednesday afternoon. We must look at these Rules as a whole, and the effect of this change is—it is a part of a scheme to enable Members to leave for the country or elsewhere to attend to other matters which, no doubt, are very important. No one can doubt but that the Friday sitting will be very attenuated; that the efforts of the Whips will be unable to keep a House, and that that day may be wiped out, as a day for public business, altogether. The right hon. Gentleman may, in the debate, give us some reason how public business will be best promoted by the change. It cannot be Government business. No Government business is introduced on Wednesday. I should have thought the Government were not indisposed to recognise the importance of Wednesday. It is a day when Cabinets meet, and when that Front Bench is deserted by the Government; it is the day that members of the Government devote to their Departmental duties, and that is a matter which is worthy of consideration. When are the members of the Government going to attend to their Departments if the House is to sit on Wednesday I afternoons, and they are not to have the relief they ought to have? Then it is said that what tends most to the convenience of private Members tends most to the convenience of the House, but who is the best judge of the convenience of the Members? Opinions differ on this matter; there are some who think the convenience of Members will be served by the change from Wednesday to the Friday, and others who object to that change also on the ground of con- venience. It is not a question for the Government, but a question on which the House itself is the best judge, the true judge, and the only judge. If the right hon. Gentleman had said, "I believe this change to be absolutely essential to carry on the business of the the country; I cannot carry on the business of the country with reference to Supply or legislation or administration unless we get rid of Wednesday and take the business we generally take on Wednesday on a Friday," then I think he would be quite justified in making this question what Mr. Gladstone used to call a vital question. But I cannot conceive a right hon. Gentleman in his position, having, as he says, the confidence of the country, resigning if the House does not give him this Wednesday. Mr. Gladstone had a strong majority in 1881, but he did not believe it to be necessary for the large changes he made to force his opinion on the House. I remember that there were several revolts on that side of the House in 1881, and that Mr. Gladstone gave way when he saw a matter was not received with favour. Mr. Smith did the same thing, and modified his arrangements when he saw that the general sense of the House was the other way. I do not say that the general sense of the House may not be convinced by the right hon. Gentleman's argument. What I say is that it is not fair that he should make this question a vital question and not allow the House to have its own opinion on the matter. What is convenient to "A" is not convenient to "B." How the division will go I do not know. I know a great many Members on that side will vote in favour of the Government, and that a great many of the leading Members on this side will vote against the right hon. Gentleman's proposals; but however that may be, this question ought to be decided by the House itself, uninfluenced in any way except by argument, and in my opinion the House of Commons ought to be allowed a free and independent judgment in the matter.

This is a question upon which the Government take a strong view; it is a question to which we have given most careful consideration, and we do not think, as the right hon. Gentleman appears to suppose, that the only consideration which we ought to take account of is the desire of this Member or of that Member to work on Friday, or the desire of this Member or that Member to have a holiday on Wednesday. Those are very important considerations, but they are not the sole considerations which suggested themselves to the Government in making this change, and before I sit down I shall explain to the House why it is we attach such importance to this discussion. Before I come to that, let me deal with one objection not referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, but referred to at some length by other speakers—the hon. Member for King's Lynn, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet, and others — the argument that it would throw an undue burden, firstly, on the House at large; secondly, on the officers of the House; and thirdly, on the Ministers, by depriving them of that repose which is given by the short sitting on the Wednesday. I think there is some weight in that argument, but that weight is notably diminished by a circumstance which has not been referred to in any single one of the speeches we have heard—namely, that under these Rules there will be rest given by the interval for dinner on each one of the four days. [A Voice: "One hour."] No, not one hour; on the contrary, frequently more than that to the various speakers; certainly more than that to the Chairman of Committees and to Mr. Speaker, who will have to sit only three days in the week. Therefore, so far as the most important persons are concerned, the Rule provides for that. There are circumstances — not very common circumstances—under which the Chairman of Committees may be in the Chair on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, but he has now got a Deputy Assistant, and there will be this lengthened interval, so I think the weight of the argument can be very easily exaggerated, while no attempt has been made to give weight to the considerations on the other side. Now, I pass from the relatively insignificant, but by no means negligeable, factor in the consideration of this question. If I truly interpret the sense of the majority of those who have spoken against this change, it is a fear, and, as I venture to think, a fantastic fear, that has been raised in their bosoms, that Fridays will be handed over to faddists, philanthropists, and revolutionists. I shall have something to say on that point later. But I may here interpolate an observation—though it would be out of order to dwell at length on the matter—which I think ought to be made before we go to a division. I understand that the terrors of these friends of mine are augmented by a proposed Rule standing on the Paper by which practically there may be settled in one debate, not only whether a Bill shall be read a second time, but also whether it shall go to a Grand Committee. Within the last few days I have had the advantage of hearing representations made by gentlemen intimately acquainted with the working of Grand Committees—far more intimately acquainted with their working than I can profess to be. These gentlemen, some of whom have been Chairmen of Grand Committees, have represented to me that such a change as is proposed, would, by increasing the number of Bills sent up, threaten with destruction the whole machinery of these Grand Committees. They have quite convinced me. ["Oh, oh!"] Those are the representations made to me; I do not wish to pursue the point, as it is really out of order at present, but, at all events, they have convinced me that that change cannot and ought not to be considered alone, and that before adopting it the whole machinery of the Grand Committees, the method by which Bills are sent, and the kind of Bills that ought to be sent to them, should have the most careful consideration of a Committee of this House. Under these circumstances, with such authority against them, the Government do not propose to press that Rule any further on the consideration of the House.

The one good Rule gone!

I am sorry not to have the favour of the Hon. Member for East Mayo in this proposal, but the good fortune of getting him to agree with me on any aspect of any question is of such rare occurrence that I cannot profess to have any very bitter disppointment at finding myself, even on this occasion, in opposition to him. Now, Sir, what is the argumentative basis of almost every oration which we have heard in connection with this subject? It is that the difficulty of inducing Members of this House to attend on Friday—even on Friday afternoon—is so great that we cannot ask them to undergo the sacrifice. Let us suppose that to be true—although I think I can show it is untrue—what then becomes of the work of Supply? I am really astounded at the view which has been taken in this discussion as to the relative value and importance of private Members' legislation and the work of Supply. As far as the Government is concerned, undoubtedly the work of Supply is absolutely necessary, because if the Government is beaten or frequently beaten in Supply, it is clearly impossible for them any longer to hold office. Very well. So far as the Government is concerned, Supply is no doubt vital. But as regards the rest of the House, when did Supply sink to this small and insignificant place among the matters that we have to discuss? When we come to the Supply Rule we shall hear speeches of a very different tenour. We shall then be told that Supply is the very root and basis of our whole system; the most important thing we have to discuss; the only means of bringing a recalcitrant Government to its senses; the only method by which the the attention of the country can be called to grave scandals and abuses. No doubt my hon. friend the Member of King's Lynn, who has been foremost in denouncing this as he has been in denouncing every other suggestion—

The right hon. Gentleman must really forgive me interrupting him; I not only have not denounced every proposal of the Government, but, on the contrary, I supported one the other night.

Then I express fervent gratitude for a rare favour. But I was thinking, when I made that observation, of the original speech of the hon. Member on these Rules, in which he did not point out one single merit which these Rules possessed, but rather urged that there was not a single demerit which changes could possibly possess of which these Rules did not show flagrant and striking examples. Under these circumstances, I think I was justified in saying that my hon. friend took a leading part in the opposition of these Rules. But that is a parenthesis. Those who have taken a leading part against these Rules, when we come to the proposals which regard Supply, will, say that Supply is the one thing of importance; the one way of controlling the Government; the one way of introducing order into our finances, and a far more important subject of discussion than any mere proposals of a legislative kind for which the Government make themselves responsible. Mark you, the argument is that Members cannot be got to attend on Friday mornings. I can tell the House that the difficulty is not to get Members to attend on Friday morning, but to get them to attend on Friday evening, and it is on Friday evenings, if we take the advice of these supporters of Supply, we are to consider the finances of the country week by week, and month by month. There may be dangers in the scant attendance of Members on Fridays under the Rule we propose, but what are they compared with the dangers we shall run if Supply is discussed in an utterly insufficient House, or if chance divisions are taken by which the opinion of the House is not properly represented? That argument will make clear why I drew the distinction, so much objected to by the Member for East Mayo, between the proposal for having a morning sitting on Friday, and, the proposal to have a sitting devoted to private Members' legislation. I think we ought to have that sitting devoted to private Members. That is the plan of the Government. But it is far more fundmental in our view that we should not have a Friday evening sitting, in which the House has no representative force; in such circumstances, for no purpose whatever, least of all for the purpose of conducting the financial business of the country, is it proper we should be asked to meet. This consideration ought to be present to the minds of all who talk of the credit of the House. Speaker after speaker has told us that the credit of the House will be sacrificed if there is not a large attendance at half-past five in the afternoon to vote for or against some Private Bill. Is not the credit of the House as much involved in having a large attendance at half-past nine on Friday evenings if at the time we are asked to consider Supply? I think that is more important. But I do not think there will be any difficulty at all on important Bills, in getting Members to attend and take their fair share in the work at half-past five. Everybody acquainted with the working of the House knows perfectly well the difficulty of inducing Members to come back at 9 o'clock to sit through the not always very attractive or businesslike discussions that are forced upon us in Supply. That difficulty may be, and indeed is, almost insuperable. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton, in the speech he has just delivered, said that this Wednesday Rule has worked for fifty years with perfect satisfaction to the House, to successive Governments, and to the country; and he asks what change there is in the circumstances in which we now meet, which justify or necessitate this alteration. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman. There is—and it is folly to shut our eyes to it—an immense change in the habits of the people with regard to what are now called "week-ends," of which the influence is, must be, and ought to be, felt in this House. I am told on all hands that in all industries, in all classes, right through the whole community, the enormous increase of the facilities of locomotion has made a change in the habits of the people—and in our own habits, too, who are representative of the people—which it would be folly on the part of this House to ignore. I think, on the whole, the change is a good one, but I will not argue the question. We have to take things as we find them, and whereas it may have been, and indeed was, perfectly suitable to the habits of this House in former days to sit on Friday night up to twelve or one or two o'clock, I think it is perfectly unsuitable to the modern conditions under which we live. If anybody doubts the value or force of that argument, I would ask him to consider who it is that helps to carry on the necessary business of the country late on Friday nights. I am not going to do anything so invidious—I was going to say discourteous—as to mention names, but I would ask all the Gentlemen who have spoken against this Rule— with the exception, I must say, of my hon. friend the Member for Peckham—to consider what assistance they have given to the passage of Supply late on Friday nights. Are they among the Members upon whom the Government can count to sacrifice their convenience and come down to sit through the tedious debates on Supply? I do not know, but I am pretty certain that a conscientious examination of their own records will convince my hon. friends, with the exception I have mentioned, that, at all events, whoever is to carry on the work of Supply on Friday nights, they are not to be counted among them. That, it will be observed, is of vital importance when I come to deal with the appeal so freely made from both sides of the House to leave this an open question. On what is the appeal based to allow Members to vote as they feel disposed upon this question? It is based on the plausible argument that, whereas this arrangement is intended to suit the convenience of Members of the House, it is the Members of the House whose convenience is consulted who ought to decide, and that every man should be left with perfect security to say what will or will not suit his convenience. But the House is not voting on the convenience of all the Members of the House. What we are going to vote upon is this—whether those who do not mean to attend on Friday are going to compel those who, under pressure, would attend on Friday, to do so; and I do not see why that subject should be left open. It is a subject of far wider and of more far-reaching effect than the convenience of Mr. A, Mr. B, or Mr. C; and for these reasons the Government are clearly of opinion that, by the conditions under which we now carry on our work, there ought not to be an evening sitting on Friday. There are great advan- tages in having even for a morning sitting private Bill legislation on a Friday rather than Supply. Private Bill legislation is known throughout the whole of our work practically from the first week of the session. Any Member can look ahead at the list of Bills and see what are the controversial measures which affect his constituency, and he can make his arrangements a month or even four months ahead if he pleases. With Supply, however, the case is different. Divisions come on at an uncertain period, and no human being can tell a week ahead what will be the subject of discussion or what form it will take. Though we regard it as relatively of secondary importance that there should be a twelve o'clock sitting on Friday, we do not think on the whole that that will be the most convenient arrangement for the House and for the country. I think we have a right—and I think the House will feel that I have endeavoured to make out a case—to look at this matter from all sides. Having done so, and having told the House that this is really no mere passing fancy of the Government, but a maturely considered change, I think that may appeal, and I am sure that I shall not appeal in vain, to the loyal support of those who habitually help us.

said he was very sorry to hear what had just fallen from the Leader of the House, for he had declared distinctly that this matter must be considered as a Government question. He ventured to suggest that this was a matter which ought to be left to the free and unfettered vote and decision of every hon. Member of the House. It was not in any shape or form a question of the Government against the Opposition, and it was not of a Party character. The change from Wednesday to Friday and the reverse was not a matter which would expedite Government business, and it would in no way assist Government legislation. On the contrary, it would retard it. The other changes which had been proposed were in quite a different category. His objection to the whole of these changes was that they were conceived not in the interests of those hon. Members who desired to take part in the debates, but in the interests of those who only wished to put in an appearance from time to time to rush into the "aye" or "no" Lobby, entirely ignorant of what they were voting for, and did not care so long as they voted in the Government Lobby. The Rule under discussion was not only unpopular on the Opposition side, but also on the Government side, and the First Lord of the Treasury dare not take off the Government pressure, or the Vote would go against him. An hon. Member opposite had told him that he did not like this Rule, and it was more like bullying them to cram this Rule down their throats in this way. The right hon. Gentleman would get his Rule through much easier if he would leave it to the unfettered judgment of the House. If it was left an open question as to whether hon. Members preferred this change or the old Wednesday arrangement, then the decision would be whatever was the most convenient to the majority of the House. He hoped the debate on this point would not close without further discussion. It had been said that the Government could not afford to leave this to the judgment of the House, because it would form a very awkward precedent, but he ventured to say that that was a very unworthy argument to put forward.

It is not an argument which I used.

said that argument had been used by hon. Members opposite. He asked the right hon. Gentleman, even at the eleventh hour, to consider this point. It would facilitate matters, create a good impression, and tend to discourage discussion upon other Rules, if the right hon. Gentleman would come forward and make this concession for the individual comfort and convenience of the House.

I ask the permission of the House to say a word or two in support of that chorus—I might say consensus—of opinion on the part of the more experienced hon. Members of this House who are altogether opposed, it appears from the debate, to relegating Fridays to the business of private Members. I think it must be admitted by all who have listened to this debate that the hon. Member for East Mayo was more than justified in his contention at the commencement of this debate that Wednesdays and Fridays must be discussed together. There is no doubt that they are inseparable, and I am bound to say that that is what I always understood it to be from the first. We know now perfectly clearly where we stand. In the first place I should like to say a word or two in reply to my right hon. friend. He expressed his unbounded surprise that in all the speeches which had been made, and which objected to the undue work which would be thrown both upon the Members and the Officials of the House by continuous four-day sittings, nothing had been said with regard to the great relief they would enjoy by the adjournment for dinner. But, after all, what does that amount to? The House is to adjourn from eight until nine. It is the practice of the Speaker or the Chairman now to leave the House for half an hour, so that what it comes to is that they are to half an hour additional leisure in return for the four continuous days.

And to meet an hour earlier.

I do not think that argument is worth a great deal in support of the proposal. My right hon. friend rather turned into ridicule the "fantastic terrors" on the part of a great many of his hon. friends with regard to the kind of Bills that may be scrambled through the House of Commons on Friday afternoon. Surely my right hon. friend must remember the character of a great many of the Bills that come before us on Wednesday. Are there not such things as Irish Bills put forward of an extreme character, and which have by the fortune of the ballot until the present Session obtained some of the first places and some of the best days? Is there not a reasonable dread on the part of some Members, at all events, as to the character of these Bills and the possibility of their receiving the imprimatur of the House of Commons? That is a possibility which, under this Rule, if it be adopted according to the plan of the Government, will be a matter of far too constant occurrence. What was the basis of all the speeches made against this proposal? The basis of them was the difficulty of getting a sufficient attendance to form a House on Friday afternoons, and yet it is to those afternoons that we are desirous that the great question of Supply should be left. There is a great difference between a Friday afternoon devoted to Government business and a Friday afternoon devoted to private Bills. Has any Government coming from either side of the House ever yet had any difficulty in keeping a House for the Supply that is necessary for the government of the country? That is the most far-fetched idea. I have ever heard. If the Government is unable to keep a House to support its own business, I should be afraid, myself, that the days of that Government would be very nearly done. Besides, it seems to me that Friday evenings are not liable to this great difficulty and danger. There is the simplest and easiest way in the world of avoiding it. It has already been partly suggested by my hon. friend the Member for the Sowerby Division. It is perfectly possible on Fridays to sit from twelve to seven, or from two to, eight, for the purpose of transacting the business of the Government dealing with questions of Supply. In that way there would be no difficulty whatever I venture to think, in saving the credit of the House of Commons which my right hon. friend seemed to think is greatly in danger. In regard to the question of week-ends, he says there has been a great change in the habits of the people of England in the matter of taking a holiday on the Saturday and Sunday. I am not prepared to deny that that is the case. I am glad if it is the case. The more holidays they get, so far as I am concerned, the better. But that is not the kind of week-end that affects the House of Commons. A weekend here means a week-end for the purpose of going to some agreeable party. [Cries of "No."] Surely that is what usually happens at the week-end which hon. Members of this House like. A great many people elsewhere like to enjoy an agreeable party from Saturday to Monday at no great distance from London. That is generally accepted, so far as I understand it, by the term week-end. With all the respect in the world, I do not think by itself that is at all a sufficient reason for making a complete change in the Rules and practice of the House of Commons. In dealing with the various appeals made to him to leave this an open question, my right hon. friend seemed to think that the grounds on which those appeals were made were totally inadequate. I should like to put the appeal on a different ground, which, I think, is worthy of the consideration of any Leader of the House of Commons, however powerful or however great his majority may be. This matter, which is not, strictly speaking, a Government question, ought not, in my humble opinion, to be made a Government question. As far as my recollection goes, this is the first time it has been made a Government question, although there have been numerous occasions on which the Rules of the House have been amended. I think it is well to remember that the pressure may be too great, and that it may produce a strain on the loyalty of supporters at last. The Leader of the House should remember that the House is easily and readily led, but that it is a very bad place to try to drive. I confess that in the first instance I was led to look upon this Rule with great favour, and no doubt the temptation to do so was exceedingly great. My right hon. friend the Member for South Antrim has no fear as to the keeping of a full House for any purpose whatever on Friday. Let me say, with great respect, how it strikes me. It is quite true, as my right hon. friend points out, that the attendance at Supply Committees has never been very strict or very close. You will have Thursday for Supply, Friday for private Members' Bills, and Saturday and Sunday two open days. Is it possible to doubt that a very large number of Members of the House will avail themselves of the opportunity of taking a holiday for these two days? You will have Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday when they will probably attend to public business. I say that the House will be put in the position of enjoying a holiday for practically four days out of the seven. It seems to me that there will be a less attendance for private Members' business, unless the Government undertake to keep a House than there has ever been before. One section of the House, no doubt, will always be in attendance. These are the men who hold extreme opinions. I cannot say, with my experience of the House, that the fears which have been expressed to night by a great many of my hon. friends are unreasonable, or that they have been very much exaggerated, namely, that if Fridays are relegated to private Members there will be a danger of a great many Bills of an extreme character being brought forward, and for the passing of which those who are keenly interested in them will make any sacrifice to make a House when the great majority of Members are away. In all probability a great many of these bills will be rushed through. Even then they will have received, so far as the mind of the country is concerned, the approval and sport of the majority of the House of Commons, and that in itself would be an extremely unfortunate thing. My hon. friend the Member for Chelsea has pointed out quite truly that such bills might meet with a very different fate in another place. I say it is most undesirable to place more responsibility, especially responsibility of this kind, upon the House of Lords, than rests upon them at the present time. I would join in the appeal to my right hon. friend with regard to this particular Rule to let it be known among his followers and supporters that, be their opinions what they may, they will be at liberty, it without any charge of disloyalty to their Leaders, to act on their opinions and vote as they see fit.

said he had at the first the greatest objection to the proposed change, but the First Lord had taken the House into his confidence. The difficulty which his right hon. friend had indicated was one which rested on an assumption which he was not quite sure his right hon. friend had a right to make, and he therefore rose for the purpose of asking him whether, supposing the House persisted in adhering to its present practice of sitting on Friday evening, it necessarily followed that the business to be taken on Friday sittings. and therefore on Friday evenings, would continue as at present to be the business of Supply. If he did not say that, then he thought it was incumbent upon those of his hon. friends who objected to the proposed change to say they were prepared to attend the House for the Second Reading of important Bills, and to remain until twelve o'clock for issues of the first magnitude. If the House was good enough to sit at all on Friday evenings, it was good enough to decide an issue of first rate importance.

said he wished to join in the appeal which had been made to the Leader of the House. This was not a Party question, and it should be decided by Members of the House irrespective of Party. He could not conceive why Party issues should be involved in a matter which was for the convenience of the House. He asked the Leader of the House to make this an open question, not that he thought it would make much difference in the result, but that it would make a wonderful difference in the respect with which the Rules would be viewed. The present Rules had had a sanction which they never would have obtained if they had been passed under Party pressure. As to the Amendment immediately before the House, speaking from the point of view with reference to the work of the House, he really considered, although the change would be for his own personal convenience, that if they were to have four working days, one after the other, there would be too heavy a strain on Members, and the result would be that the work would be done less efficiently. It would be also a severe strain on the officials of the House, who were obliged to be there. That meant that for the morning sitting there would be six hours of continuous work, and the free interval of an hour was not sufficient for recuperative purposes. Then succeeded the evening sitting from nine to one o'clock in the morning, which was a strain on the occupant of the Chair and on the other officials to which they ought not to be subjected, and which would not be compensated for by the half-day at the week end. It would make the labour more tedious and monotonous and do away with the benefit received from the Wednesday break under the present system. What they wanted in the House of Commons was not only men of leisure, but men engaged in business and professional pursuits, who would feel it almost impossible to enter Parliament if they had to come there for four days in the week at two o'clock in the afternoon. As to the Fridays, he thought the dangers conjured up by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford, were by no means imaginary. He himself could foresee the danger of certain faddists, sitting on both sides of the House, who were desirous of pushing through Bills and getting a Second Reading for these, which weight probably bring about many business difficulties in the future. He did not see how these Rules would be any great advantage to the business powers of the House; but they would be a great disadvantage to a class of men from whom it was most desirable to recruit new Members, and certainly they would not add to the comfort and satisfaction of the best Members of the House of Commons.

said that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House had referred to the number of hon. Members who did not attend the House during Supply nights on Friday. He did not think that the right hon. Gentleman could include him in that category, for he always made it a point to be present when Supply came on. But if they were to make Friday a dies non, so to speak, or for the consideration of Private Members Bills only, and took Supply on Thursday, he could not see why the difficulty of securing the attendance of Members would not recur. He ventured to ask, was it to be publicly stated that the reason the Government were making this alteration in the Rules of the House was that they could not get a sufficient number of Members of the House of Commons to attend to their duty? If that were so, he was afraid this House would fall even lower than it was alleged in some quarters, to have done in public estimation. If the Government would only look for it, it was just possible that they might find some other cause why Members did not attend on Supply nights. As an independent Member, he must say that it seemed to indicate a want of confidence in the Government. [Cries from the Ministerial benches of "No, no."] Well, if hon. Members did not attend to carry out the work of the Government, it suggested to his mind that that might be a reflection of the laxity of the Government itself, which had spread to their former supporters. He asked what would be the effect of these changes on the country? He did not hesitate to say that they would not tend to raise the feeling of the country in favour of the House. Thirty or forty years ago there was a great movement on behalf of a Saturday half-holiday for the working classes, with which most of them sympathised. Well, the House of Commons had a full Saturday holiday, and were they to say to the country that this House, which only sat six months in the year, could not meet for more than four days in the week to carry on the business of this great Empire? This was not altogether a question of the convenience of Members. He objected to the proposal, because he was certain it would make the country feel that they had been neglecting their duty; and it would not strengthen the opinion of the contituencies in the House of Commons. He was all for a long day on Monday and Tuesday, a break on Wednesday, and a long day again on Thursday and Friday, and if hon. Members did not attend on Friday for Supply, then the Government and the Government Whips were not doing their duty. There were a number of Members who were very rarely seen on these Benches. Why should they not take their turn of duty? This House had stood many centuries, and he hoped that they would not do something which would degrade themselves in the eyes of the public; and that it should not go forth that they were so fond of pleasure that they could not attend to their duty.

said that the First Lord of the Treasury declared that he disagreed from the hon. Member for East Mayo. Now, he generally agreed with the hon. Member for East Mayo, and disagreed from the First Lord; but in this particular instance he agreed with the First Lord and entirely disagreed from the hon. Mem- ber for East Mayo. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton had said that the First Lord of the Treasury had stated that if these proposals were thrown out he would resign.

I distinctly stated that the First Lord did not say that.