§ MR. ANDERSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If, when, in answer to a question asking what precedents there are for the absence of the Sovereign during the Session of Parliament, he referred to one and called it "the last," he meant to imply that there are others previous; if, in the only one referred to, that of 1872, it is not the fact that the Sovereign sailed from the country on Sunday the 24th of March, while Parliament adjourned for the Easter Recess on Tuesday the 26th, meeting again on Thursday the 4th of April, while the Sovereign returned on Sunday the 7th of April, the absence being thus, practically, only for the Easter Recess; and, if he has no precedent more exactly similar in circumstances to the present, or if in actual fact there are no others?
§ MR. DISRAELIHer Majesty has been twice absent from her dominions during the Session of Parliament, and this during a reign of nearly 40 years. No interference with public business has ever been occasioned in consequence of that absence, and it is discharged 883 with the same promptitude and precision as when Her Majesty is in the United Kingdom. Irrespective of the telegraph, a messenger arrives at Her Majesty's Continental residence every day, and she is always attended by a Secretary of State.
§ MR. ANDERSONDoes the right Gentleman mean that there are two precedents for the Queen's present absence from England during the Session of Parliament? The right hon. Gentleman says that Her Majesty has been twice away. Is this one of the two occasions, or were both those occasions previous to the present?
§ Mr. DISRAELIIn that case Her Majesty would have been absent three times.