§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONEIt may be for the convenience of the House if, with respect to the Financial Clauses standing for to-night, I repeat the announcement I made on June 20 with regard to the intended order of proceeding. The clauses considered as Financial Clauses are 12 in number. Out of that number we then proposed to negative seven—four of them for the purpose of proposing new clauses at the close of the Bill in due course, and three of them we drop altogether, as they have become unnecessary. There were five other clauses, three of which I said it was our intention to postpone—Clauses 14, 15, and 16—because they were dependent upon the other clauses we propose to negative, and not on account of any matter of controversy involved in them. A question arose whether we should be able to fulfil—whether under the Resolution passed recently it would be in our power to propose to postpone the clauses. We now understand that the judgment of a competent authority is that the Motion for postponement can be made. If that is so, it is our duty to fulfil our engagement and to move for the postponing of those clauses. Then there are two other clauses—18 and 19—which we propose to pass, because there 1484 is no alteration affecting them in their financial arrangements. The intention is exactly that which was mentioned on June 20.