§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI desire, Sir, to ask the Prime Minister a question in relation to the course which he desires the House to pursue in relation to the Debate on the Address. I would ask him whether he is aware that from 1886 to 1892—omitting, 1890, in which there were exceptional circumstances—the average length of the Debate on the Address has been nearly 10 Parliamentary days; whether he is aware that in 1892, the precedent on which last night, in the absence of the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer especially relied, though the Address only lasted five nights, three-fourths of that time was occupied by speeches and Amendments of the then Opposition, and the comparative shortness of the Debate was entirely due to the abstention of the supporters of the then Government from pressing questions in which they were interested on the attention of the House; whether he is aware that of the seven and a-half nights which have been occupied up to the end of last night's Sitting, one-half of the time has been taken up by speeches of the right hon. Gentleman's supporters, and of the five Amendments that have been moved three have been moved by Members of the Home Rule Party, and whether 1063 under these circumstances he still thinks it fair to the Opposition to compel them to debate questions in which they have an interest on so inconvenient an occasion as Saturday afternoon?
§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONEIt is totally impossible for me to follow the right hon. Gentleman through the statements of a somewhat complicated and arbitrary character made without a single moment's notice. The right hon. Gentleman chooses a number of years from 1886 to 1892. I might choose another number of years to show a totally different result. In the case of the last year that he has referred to, it appears to me that in putting a question he has made an argument which has nothing whatever to do with the legitimate purpose of the question. I should say that we cannot lay down any absolute rule for the Debate upon the Address. It is impossible to do so without reference to the subjects, and I would also say without reference to the nature of the Public Business in which this House is about to be engaged. In my opinion, the proposal before the House is a perfectly reasonable one, namely, that we should close the Debate on the present Address with respect to the subjects that are to be brought forward within the time already specified; and if the right hon. Gentleman desires to have a discussion on the subject of the time that has been taken on other occasions in debating the Address, I think at least we ought to know before-hand what is the subject we are to debate in order to have an opportunity of instituting reasonable comparison.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThe right hon. Gentleman appears to impute to me something of the nature of discourtesy in not having given him notice of my question. But perhaps he is not aware, having been more agreeably occupied, that the subject of my question was the very topic we were debating for two hours and a-half last night. I assumed, of course, he had been made fully acquainted with these facts by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It seems that we are not only to be led by two gentlemen, but by two who do not communicate with each other.
§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONEI must say that I think, under all the circumstances of the time under which I am 1064 endeavouring to serve the House to the best of my ability, the right hon. Gentleman would have shown better taste and have better fulfilled the ditties of the situation which he occupies if he had spared his reference to my more agreeable occupation.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORMr. Speaker, I rise to a point of Order. I wish to ask, as a matter of Order, whether there is any Question before the House?
§ *MR. SPEAKERThere is not only no Question before the House, but the Debate is contravening the Standing Order, which says that the Motion which the right hon. Gentleman has made shall be put without amendment or debate. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman rose to make a personal explanation.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI rise merely to say, Sir, that if I have unwittingly hurt the feelings of the right hon. Gentleman, or, I will say, if I have unwittingly given him cause of offence, I apologise to him, as he is the last person in the House whose feelings I should desire to hurt. I was not attacking him, but the right hon. Gentleman next to him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer).
*MR. J. LOWTHERI rise to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is in a position to make any statement as regards the conduct of Public Business to-day and to-morrow? I refer specially to arrangements for the allocation of the time of the House to specific Amendments with a view to avoid what occurred at au early hour this morning with regard to an Amendment which had not been previously under discussion, an attempt being made to force it on after the usual time during which the Sittings of the House are conducted. I would wish to ask him whether I am to understand that, in accordance with the indication he himself gave the other day, no attempt will be made to force on the Motion which stands in my name at an unreasonable how? I have gathered that the House will sit on Saturday, and when I speak about an unreasonable hour I am not referring to the earlier hours of Saturday. I think the House will like to have from the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that no attempt will be made to commence the initiation of a discussion at an unreasonable hour.
§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONEI do not think that any advantage would accrue if I were to attempt to enter into any engagement of the kind suggested. In the conduct of Business, as time proceeds, an estimate may be formed which cannot be made beforehand, and what will most conduce to the convenience of Members of the House is that we should studiously, in a spirit of fairness and impartiality, watch the course of the proceedings, with au endeavour to adjust the time of the House, as far as possible, for the general convenience.