Well, I rise to a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I regret I was not in the House when my -hon. friend from Peel brought up a question in regard to the vote taken the other day. I was engaged in the Railway Committee and we have only finished our labours a few moments ago so that I could not be present -when my hon. friend spoke. I was very much surprised to find a letter in the papers from my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor), the chief whip of the opposition, in regard to why the debate was not continued. The chief whip of the opposition was not present the night before the vote was taken, and consequently I made the arrangement with his assistant, the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Rlain). I do not think my hon. friend says that my statement was wrong with regard to the names he gave me of those he expected to take part in the debate. When we make arrangements of that kind it is not always customary to say that such and such a member shall speak and then such and such a member shall follow him. But it is the custom of this House that when arrangements are made that a certain number of members shall speak on each side of the House, that the members on each side should alternate in the debate. During the debate the other day I showed the member for Peel the names of the members that we expected on this side to take part in the debate, and they were largely the members from New Brunswick. There was no hesitancy at all about showing him the names. My hon. friend (Mr. Blain) informed me that five members on the opposition side intended to speak, and consequently, just as I said to the ' Free Press, the debate was to be continued as we expected, and the question was whether we were going to be able to conclude the debate on the following day in a reasonable time. So I asked my hon. friend (Mr. Blain) to try and reduce the number of speakers on his side, stating that I would do the same, and that we would have at least three members to speak on each side of the House.