§ In reply to Mr. DiLLWYN,
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, it had originally been intended that the House should rise on Tuesday for the Easter Recess, which he was sorry to say would have to be a very short one. Since then it was thought that the second reading of the Army Discipline Bill might be concluded on Monday, and that the House might have risen on that evening. As, however, it appeared that the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) and the hon. 271 Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) intended to raise important questions of foreign policy on the Motion for the adjournment, and as it would be manifestly impossible to get through the debate on the Bill and the debate on their proposals in one night, he feared the Government would be forced to adhere to their original intention of adjourning on Tuesday. It was really of great importance that the House should get through the second reading of the Army Discipline Bill. He would, however, make a positive announcement on the subject to-morrow.
§ MR. DILLWYN
said, he had no intention of raising any question whatever on the Motion of adjournment.
§ MR. FAWCETT
said, there was nothing he should regret more than to be responsible for keeping the House sitting, and if any arrangement could be made which would render that course unnecessary, he would be very glad to fall in with it. His sole object in raising the discussion which he proposed to raise was that an advance to Cabul should not be undertaken before the House had an opportunity of discussing the policy of the Government in Afghanistan, and if, therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give an assurance to that effect to-morrow—["Oh, oh!"]—he thought it was not an unreasonable request—he should have great pleasure in withdrawing his Notice, and then the House might adjourn on Monday.