§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he had to complain that the Indian Budget had been postponed from the first to the second Order of the Day on Monday. The Court of Criminal Appeal Bill, which was the first Order, would probably take considerable time, and the Indian Budget might be thrown back to a comparatively late hour. He found, on referring to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, on Thursday, that he had stated, without qualification, that it would be the first Order.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is not putting a Question; he is entering into debate. He is not entitled to do that.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he would only ask the Prime Minister, Whether he would not now, for the convenience of the House, and in view of the importance of the subject, definitely fix the Indian Budget as the first Order for Monday; or, if he could not do that, whether he would not postpone it to some other day, when it could be the first Order?
MR. GLADSTONESir, with regard to the preliminary remarks of the hon. Gentleman, I must say they are remarks which ought not to be made. The hon. Member tells me that I made a statement without qualification, which I affirm distinctly I made with qualification. With regard to the subject itself, it would not be for the convenience of the House that we should postpone the Indian Budget absolutely from Monday. I think the best thing we can do is to allow it to stand as the second Order on Monday, believing, as we do, that the discussion on the Court of Criminal Appeal Bill, which is the first Order, will not travel over a wide field, and will not extend to great length.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would undertake that the Indian Budget should not be brought forward after a fixed 1114 hour on Monday? Otherwise, it might be brought forward after 11 or 12 o'clock at night.
MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, no such thing would be done. There was no intention of anything of the kind. The Government would wish to do what would be for the general convenience of the House, and they should hope that the discussion would come on at a reasonable hour. It would not be wise to fix any particular hour. What he understood was, that it would be convenient to take it as the second Order, even though it might be reached at the dinner hour.
MR. JOSEPH COWENasked the Prime Minister, whether it was intended to persevere with all the Orders of the Day on the Paper that day, and to sit until such time as they were completed, even if it were midnight? Would it not be better, as well as adding to the dignity of the House, if they prolonged their Sittings for a few days longer, in order that they might do the Business decently and in order, and avoid the scandal of the long and forced Sittings in which they were engaged?
MR. GLADSTONESir, absolutely and undoubtedly it is intended to persevere with the Orders on the Paper; but, as far as I can judge, none of them are likely to occupy any considerable time.
§ SIR JOHN HAYWill the Navy Estimates be taken on Sunday morning?
§ MR. J. LOWTHERasked, whether the Prime Minister would not fix an hour after which the Indian Budget would not be taken on Monday?
MR. GLADSTONESir, I do not think it will be for the advantage of the House to state a particular hour now. We shall, on Monday, be governed by what may then appear to be the general sense of the convenience of the House.
§ In answer to Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE,
MR. GLADSTONEsaid: I should think the Report of Supply had better be taken first on Monday. Then will come the Court of Criminal Appeal Bill, and next the Indian Budget.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEI would point out to the right hon. Gentleman, that if the Report of Supply is put down as the first Order, that will give an opportunity for discussion on various subjects which might be raised; and this 1115 would have the effect of throwing over the Indian Budget.
MR. GLADSTONEWe will not put down the Report of Supply as the first Order, unless we learn that it is not intended to use it for discussion.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked, whether it was intended to press forward the Crown Lands Bill?
§ MR. BIGGARSir, considering that 16 Irish Members voted for the second reading of the Union Officers' Superannuation (Ireland) Bill, and 21 against, I would like to ask the Prime Minister, if he does not consider that a decided expression of Irish opposition against the Bill?
§ MR. CALLANI would ask, whether it is not the fact that only 6 or 7 Irish Members opposed the Bill, and that a very large number are in favour of it?
§ MR. SPEAKERintimated that the Questions were not in Order.