§ MR. BRADLAUGHasked the First Lord of the Treasury whether he could fix a day for the promised Debate in May on the Treasury Minute relating to perpetual pensions?
§ *MR. W. H. SMITHI am aware that a large number of persons take very great interest in this question, and I am desirous of giving them full opportunity for expressing their opinions upon it, but it must depend on the progress of business. The hon. Member may rest assured that if there is any delay in the discussion of a question in which he takes great interest, the subject itself, from his own point of view, will not be prejudiced, as no action can be taken on the Minute.
§ DR. CLARK (Caithness)May I point out that we allowed the Government to get the Order on the understanding—
§ *MR. SPEAKEROrder, order. That is not a question.
§ DR. CLARKThen I will ask a question. Was it not the case that the Order, which is equal to an Act of Parliament, was obtained last Session on the promise that upon an early day there should be a full discussion on the question?
§ *MR. W. H. SMITHNo, Sir. I think the hon. Gentleman has taken an absolutely incorrect view of the matter. The Order is not an Act of Parliament in the sense in which the hon. Gentleman speaks, and the Government have undertaken that it shall not be put in operation until the House has had an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon it. Therefore, the engagement of the Government has been absolutely complied with.
§ DR. CLARKIn the case of a Treasury Minute having laid for 40 days on the Table of this House, has it not the same effect as an Order in Council?
§ *MR. W. H. SMITHIn this case, no.