§ * MR. LEAKE (Lancashire, S.E., Radcliffe)I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, considering the increasing difficulty of securing a quorum 877 of the House during the dinner hour, he will propose a modification of the Rules of Procedure providing for the adjournment of the House on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m., as unanimously recommended by the Select Committee on Procedure, 188G, or from 7.30 p.m. to 9.30 p.m., as would probably be more convenient to Members, and more conducive to the effective conduct of the business of the House? May I also be permitted to supplement my question by asking whether, in case a new Rule affecting the adjournment should be carried, it would necessarily involve the extension of the business of the House from midnight till I in the morning, as has been stated in a morning paper; and whether, in case such an extension should be necessary, it could not be met by meeting earlier?
§ * THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,) Strand, WestminsterThe hon. Member has himself almost answered the question on the Paper by the further question which he has thought right to ask. It will be in the recollection of the House that in 1888 the proposal that there should be an adjournment during the dinner hour was very fully considered and debated. The Government put forward the suggestion that there should be an interval between 8 and 9 o'clock; but the House indicated, by an overwhelming majority, their desire that the present system should be established. I am not ready to admit that there is any real difficulty in securing a quorum of Members when there is business of importance to be discussed. There has been no occasion during the present Session when a much larger number of Members than suffice to form a quorum have not been within the precincts of the House during the dinner hours. On the occasion of the count out a week ago there were at the time 115 Members in the dining room. I mention this to indicate that on such occasions when Members are not in the House they are taking the rest and refreshment which are necessary to all of us. Having regard to the pressure of public business, I should not be justified in asking the House to adjourn for two hours in the evening unless I proposed at the same time that we should meet earlier or sit later, and that is a change which I could 878 not recommend. My own impression is that the two hours to which the hon. Member refers in his question are hours in which important and valuable work is often done, although they may not be hours when speeches can be made to a large audience.
§ * MR. LEAKEIs it not a fact that our experience since 1888 points in the direction that hon. Members do not care to attend the deliberations of the House during those two hours, and is it not expected in a deliberate Assembly—
§ * MR SPEAKEROrder, order!