§ SIR C. DILKE (Gloucester, Forest of Dean)I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that notice was not given in the Blue Order Paper issued to Members this morning of the fact that the Army Estimates were to be taken to-night, and that, in consequence, some honourable Members on both sides of the House who take the greatest interest in the Army Estimates and had put Amendments down to some of the Votes, have left town? I do not know whether I should be in order in putting to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the point of order. I prefer at present simply to raise it as a question of public convenience.
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.It is perfectly true that there was a printer's error in the Blue Order Paper, but it is corrected in the White Paper. I made the statement in the House more than once that the Army Estimates would be taken to-night; and I do not think there can be any misconception in any part of the House as to the intentions of the Government.
§ SIR C. DILKEThe right honourable Gentleman made such a statement some days ago, but he did not mention it yesterday, and many Members have thought there was a change in the intentions of the Government.
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYAs far as Government time is concerned it is a matter of indifference to us whether we take the Army Votes to-night or not, but if not to-night, it will be necessary to take them on Tuesday. I am only thinking of the convenience of private Members.
§ SIR C. DILKEOn a Question of Order, may I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether a public notice some days ago by a Minister, that he intended to take a particular Vote on a particular day without any subsequent reference to it, is sufficient as against the order mentioned in the Blue Paper? On the 8th March 1898, there was a similar case in regard to Supply, and on that occasion complaint was made that the Blue Paper, which was effective notice to Members, had been circulated without the item of effective Supply, which had, however, been put on the White Paper. The Secretary to the 449 Treasury apologised to the House, and Mr. Speaker subsequently said a mistake had evidently been made, and the notice of effective Supply was insufficient. I am aware that there is a precedent of public notice having been given definitely where it was held to overrule this decision, but I want to ask if the somewhat vague public notice of Tuesday last is sufficient under the circumstances that in the meantime there has been no further reference?
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERAt a date subsequent to that quoted by the right honourable Baronet an almost identical thing occurred. A precisely similar point was raised on 21st June 1889. Owing to a printer's error certain Votes did not appear on the Blue Paper, but the error was corrected and the Votes did appear on the White Paper. On that occasion also public notice had been given that the Votes in question would be taken, and Mr. Speaker ruled in consequence that notwithstanding the printer's error the Votes could be taken, and they were taken. I feel bound to follow that precedent.
§ MR. CALDWELL (Lanark, Mid.)On Tuesday the notice was that Vote I would be taken. Now there are two Army Votes down.
§ MR. PIRIE () Aberdeen, N.I appeal to the Government not to take the Army Votes to-night. I, for one, wish to raise an important question as to recruiting.
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYI will not go behind appeals of this sort, sincerely made, as I am sure they are, by honourable Members, and I will not take the Army Votes to-night. Therefore, on Monday I shall move to take Tuesday.