§ MR. JOHN ELLISI beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the acceleration of business arising from various causes, which has become evident since the alteration of the Standing Order fixing the meeting of the House at two o'clock, he will consider whether the House might not with advantage meet at half-past two.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURIn answer to the hon. Gentleman I have to say that the question he has raised is one which, I know, interests largely hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House. Everybody would like, and nobody more than His Majesty's Ministers, to have a rather longer interval between the morning's work and the afternoon sitting of the House. I find that it has been proved by experience that Questions on ordinary days take far less time than we had at one time reason to fear they would, and that a large margin of the time now allotted to Questions within the afternoon sitting is devoted to general business. There are, I think, three observations to be made. 426 In the first place, the House might probably like to see the operation of this new Standing Order for a whole session before it considers a change. My second observation is that I do not think I could suggest a change unless I was practically assured that it would be unanimously accepted without long discussion; and, thirdly, I do not think any change ought to be adopted which would materially curtail the amount of time we have now every afternoon for the discussion of public business. I am by no means sure that I should find anything like unanimity on the proposal that we should begin Questions twenty minutes later, and yet take public business, as under the Standing Order, at five minutes to three. In other words, I have no ground to believe there would be anything like unanimity on the proposal that we should take Questions at half-past two and conclude them as at present; because a certain number of gentlemen would feel that, although half an hour was ample and more than ample, for Questions on almost every day, the case might arise when it was found that it was not. The matter is not as simple as it appears, and I cannot give any pledge at present.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs)The matter is one of great interest, and I would suggest that an opportunity should be given to the House to express an opinion on the subject. From what has reached me I believe that if there is not unanimity there would be such a body of opinion in favour of the change as would justify the right hon. Gentleman in acceding to something like my hon. friend's proposal.
§ MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)May I be allowed to say that the Irish Members on my side of the House would be in favour of a later meeting, but only on condition that the time available for Questions when required [...]s not diminished. We believe that such a change as is suggested would not really deprive the right hon. Gentleman of much time which is at present devoted to public business, but we cannot as a Party consent to any diminution of the period at present reserved for Questions.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESI should like to point out that the alteration suggested would involve the amendment of many Standing Orders.
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid there was no question before the House and no general debate could be allowed.