§ * SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucester, Forest of Dean)
said, that the First Lord of the Treasury was reported in all the daily papers, except one, to have said yesterday afternoon that precedent was 1262 undoubtedly in favour of giving Parliament, when a movement of Indian troops away from India was proposed, an opportunity of discussing whether India should bear the ordinary charges connected therewith. In one paper, however—an important one—the right hon. Gentleman was represented as using the expression "extraordinary charges" instead of "ordinary charges." He wished to ask whether the word "extraordinary" that occurred in this report was an error?
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.
Yes, Sir, I think that is so. The view of the Government—at least, my view—on the legal point is that there is no strict obligation to bring forward a Resolution in this House if India is only charged the ordinary expenses; but precedent is in favour of having a Resolution even in these circumstances, and it is not therefore proposed to break through that precedent, although the precedent is not absolutely universal.