§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA (Monaghan, S.), with reference to the Motion in the name of the First Lord of the Treasury for suspending the 12 o'clock rule, asked, Whether it was intended that no new opposed Vote should be taken after that hour, and the power only taken advantage of to conclude debate on the Vote then under consideration?
§ THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)said, that, undoubtedly, the Government did not intend to tie their hands, for if they were to take no Opposed Business after midnight they should accomplish very little by asking the House to suspend the 12 o'clock Rule. Clearly the Government "could not ask the House to continue the Committee of Supply longer than the general sense of the Committee would warrant. He believed the House was anxious to make progress at that period of the Session with Supply; and it would be a very great misfortune if they were prevented from going on with Votes, practically unopposed, after 12, or even after 1 o'clock. He thought the feeling of the Committee would be that all Parties in the House should co-operate as cordially as they could, with all the differences that must exist between different sides, in affording facilities for the transaction of Public Business.
§ MR. JOHN MORLEY (Newcastle-upon-Tyne)asked if the Government would guarantee that, in the event of the Motion for suspending the Rule being agreed to, no Votes would be taken after 12 o'clock except such as were practically unopposed?
§ MR. W. H. SMITHrepeated his answer, pointing out that to undertake that no opposed Vote should be taken after 12 o'clock at night would be equivalent to surrendering all the advantages gained.
§ MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)gave Notice that, in consequence of the unsatisfactory answer of the right hon. Gentleman he would oppose the Motion.