§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH (Bristol, W.)I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury a Question with regard to the further progress of the debate on the Government of Ireland Bill. Sir, last night the right hon. Gentleman referred to some precedents which I had quoted for the continuance of similar debates de die in diem; and he then said if I was right in my reference to the precedent of the Reform Bill of 1866, he would give way at once on that question. Well, Sir, I was not right as to that precedent. As my noble Friend the Member for Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) reminded us, that debate was not continued de die in diem from its 766 commencement, but an interval of one day, which was a private Members' day (Tuesday), was allowed to elapse. Subsequently the debate was resumed on the Thursday, and was then continued de die in diem until its termination. That precedent, therefore, being in exact accordance with the present position of the debate, I would now ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether, looking to the importance of the debate, the great interest in it over all other Business, and the necessity for many reasons of bringing it to as early a conclusion as is compatible with its proper conduct, he will not propose that it should be continued on Friday and subsequently till it is concluded?
§ THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE) (Edinburgh, Mid Lothian)I said on the previous occasion that I would not enter into precedents, and that it would be a false position in which I should place myself if, as mainly responsible for the conduct of the Business of the House, I were to set up a controversial tone against the right hon. Gentleman in favour of delaying the progress of Public Business. I stated that when we could forecast the probable course of the debate, and the number of Members who were likely to address the House, we would then, if we saw occasion, ask the House to give us what is called its whole time I will, however, consult my Colleagues before Thursday, and then will announce what course we intend to propose that the House should pursue on Friday and all subsequent days. I am bound to be a little reserved upon this question, because I think that it is perfectly possible that the demands of the Government for an unusual appropriation of the time of the House might extend to other stages of the Bill besides the second reading.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHI omitted, Sir, to state in asking the Question that having communicated with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Jennings), who had given Notice of a Motion which is first on the Paper for Friday, he has authorized me to say that, in the circumstances, he would willingly waive his right to that evening.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)asked the Prime Minister, Whether, before assenting to the right 767 hon. Gentleman's request, he would consult with other hon. Gentlemen who, like the hon. Member for Stockport, had Notices on the Paper for Friday, and ascertain whether they also would be willing to give way?
§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONEYes, Sir; I will examine the list of private Members' Motions between this and Thursday, so that, we can know what can be done.