§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR (City of London)
asked the Prime Minister with regard to the Motion to suspend the eleven o'clock rule, whether the intention was that the Workmen's Compensation Bill should be passed through that evening at all costs. They had some of the most difficult parts of the Bill still to dispose of, and the most hostile critic could not describe the discussion up to the present as obstructive.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
admitted that the discussion on the Workmen's Compensation Bill had hitherto been perfectly reasonable, though a little discursive at times. Notwithstanding the formidable appearance of the task the Government hoped they might dispose of the Bill that night, but there was no desire to force it through. If the Bill was not concluded, he was afraid they would have to put off the Feeding of Children Bill.
§ MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil)
In the event of that most regrettable necessity, could not a Saturday sitting be taken?
§ MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)
Why not put the Bill down for Friday if it is not finished to-night? The business is the suspension of the eleven o'clock 974 rule for the rest of the session, and that will not occupy very long.
§ Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
We intended to take other Bills, and you cannot give fresh time to one subject without taking from another, in the condition in which we are now. As to a Saturday sitting, I am not an habitual week-ender, and the Saturday sitting has no terrors for me, but I am afraid the idea is inconvenient and unpopular.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
; In view of the statement of the Prime Minister, I shall not divide against the suspension of the eleven o'clock rule, and I hope my friends will follow my example.
Ordered, "That the proceedings on the consideration of the Workmen's Compensation Bill, as amended, if under consideration at Eleven o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—(Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.)