§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR (Manchester, E.)I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he still proposes to put down a Resolution to-morrow for the suspension of the Twelve o'Clock Rule. I wish to ask him whether he does not think that there is considerable inconvenience in abolishing that Rule except for the purpose of finishing a great Debate or under very exceptional circumstances? I would further ask him whether he does not think it possible that all the advantage gained by the abolition of the Twelve o'Clock Rule cannot be gained equally by shortening the length of the speeches to be made? I would undertake on my own behalf—for I suppose I should have to say something on behalf of some of my hon. Friends near me—that, if the Twelve o'Clock Rule is not suspended to-morrow, I would compress such observations as I have to make into not more than 20 minutes. If that example were followed there would be time for nine speakers between 9 and 10, and that would be adequate.
§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONEI feel the force of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and I likwise feel that there ought not to be a deviation from the usual course except as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman—that is, the suspension of the Twelve o'Clock Rule should only be used for the purpose of bringing a great and extended Debate to a conclusion. Further, there should not be any deviation from the usual course when there is any serious inconvenience involved. Particularly am I encouraged 78 to act on that principle since the right hon. Gentleman has undertaken to set a good example to-morrow night by keeping his speech within certain bounds; but in mentioning those bounds the right hon. Gentleman probably stated the maximum and not the minimum. Under those circumstances, as I made my original announcement contingent, I think it would be wiser that I should not make the Motion, in the hope, of course, that the House may be enabled to arrive at a definite conclusion on the subject under discussion.