HC Deb 20 March 1885 vol 296 cc170-8
MR. W. H. SMITH

Mr. Speaker, on the Motion for the Report of Supply I wish to ask the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) whether he has received any information which he can give to the House with reference to an action which is reported to have taken place to-day in the Soudan?

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

Mr. Speaker, I have received two telegrams from General Graham. It is possible that one may have been published in the evening papers; but per- haps I had better read both of the telegrams to the House— Suakin, March 20, 5 P.M. From General Graham to War Secretary, London. Hasheen, March 20, 3.30 P.M.—Moved out from camp 6.15, leaving Shropshire and details as guards. Reached first hill 8.20. Enemy retired and occupied other hill one mile and a-quarter distant. After short halt ordered Berkshire and Marines to clear high isolated hill; Indian Contingent and Guards in support. This was done very effectually. Enemy, being driven off ridge, streamed away south towards Tamai, and were charged by two squadrons Indian Lancers in bush. Cavalry retired on Guards; many of enemy passed Guards at foot of hill and made for hill west of Hasheen Valley, and were shelled by Royal Horse Artillery. Other parties, moving round our right, were engaged in bush by 5th Lancers. Meanwhile zariba, with four intrenched posts on hill commanding, it, is being formed. Advanced troops have all returned to this position, and will return to camp, leaving East Surrey and two Krupp guns, four Gardners, water tanks, and signal appliances at intrenched position. Killed:—Scots Guards, Captain Dalison, Private Ashley; 5th Lancers, Troop Sergent Major Nicholls, Private Edwards; 9th Bengal Lancers, one non-commissioned officer, four sowars. Wounded:— Surgeon Major Lane, A.M.S., severely; Scots Guards, six men; Coldstreams, eight men; Grenadiers, eight men; Berkshire, two men; 5th Lancers, Major Harvey, severely; two men slightly; 9th Bengal Cavalry, Major Robertson, severely; seven sowars; 15th Sikhs, one man; 70th Sikhs, two men. Infantry behaved with great steadiness. Strength of enemy estimated 4,000. Loss unknown, but considerable. I have since received another telegram sent to Lord Wolseley to the following effect:— Suakin, March 20, 9.35 P.M. Following to Wolseley to-day:—The result of to-day's operations has been to establish a strong position commanding the Hasheen Valley, and protecting my right flank and line of communication in the ensuing operations against Tamai. The Cavalry showed great dash and individual gallantry in very difficult ground covered with high thorn bushes, occupied by an agile and determined enemy. The Infantry proved that when properly handled they could master the enemy in any position. The Berkshire, supported by Marines, stormed a steep hill strongly held, while the Guards showed an unshaken front when attacked in the thickest scrub, and protected the Cavalry by steady volleys. The Indian Brigade also worked admirably. The practice of the Artillery was excellent, and the positions chosen with judgment. The Royal Engineers, assisted by Madras Sappers and Miners and working parties of East Surrey, planned and executed the defensive works with great skill and coolness, although repeatedly threatened with attack by the enter- prising enemy, who at one time swarmed round on all sides.—Graham, Suakin. First Resolution agreed to. (2.)"That a sum, not exceeding £4,543,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of the Pay, Allowances, and other Charges of Her Majesty's Land Forces at Home and Abroad (exclusive of India), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1886.

Resolution read a second time.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, that, owing to some misapprehension as to when the Question was put, he was unable to move in Committee the Amendment he now proposed to move. He desired to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £500,000. He had gathered from a statement made by the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) that about £70,000 was now in his Estimate in excess of what would be the cost of the troops of England that were now forming the garrison in Egypt. He not only wished to move the reduction of the Vote by this £70,000, but by a further sum, and he had put the total down at £500,000. The garrison that they had in Egypt had been there for several years; it amounted, he believed, to about 6,000 men. The cost to them of those men would be considerably in excess of £500,000; but he did not wish to charge Egypt any more than was absolutely just, and therefore he only proposed to reduce the Vote by the amount he had already mentioned. As he had said, this garrison had been in Egypt for several years, and he thought it was very possible that it would be there some years longer. Now, although he had often raised this question in the House, he had never received a definite reason for their having to pay for those troops. It was very obvious they were there not to defend the country from its enemies, because when an enemy presented himself they sent over a separate Army. As a matter of fact, they were there to fulfil the duty which was fulfilled by a gendarmerie — in other words, to maintain order in Egypt. They had put up a Khedive, they considered that that Khedive ought to be defended by some armed force, and therefore they had permanently, so to speak, established that garrison of 6,000 men in the country. Under those cir- cumstances, it seemed to him that the cost of maintaining that garrison formed part of the expenses of the administration of Egypt, and, that being so, he did not see why the taxpayers of this country should pay for the troops. Yesterday, during the debate on the Army Estimates, he heard many hon. Gentlemen speak as old soldiers. Now, he spoke as an old taxpayer. Hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench seemed to play with hundreds and thousands and millions of pounds in the most easy way, and, in order to make things comfortable, they said—"Let the British taxpayer pay this. "He did not see why the British taxpayer should pay for those troops. He had no desire to raise an Egyptian debate—the matter was known in all its intricacies—but he had frequently asked hon. Gentlemen on the Liberal side if they knew why their troops were in Egypt, and they had said they did not. He was sure no one in the country did. He therefore thought the Egyptian Government ought to pay for the troops. Perhaps they might be told that the Egyptian Government could not pay. It was well known that the Egyptian Government could pay were it not that they were obliged to pay such large sums in interest to the bondholders. Obviously, the expenses of the administration of the country must come before the payment of its debts, just as the expenses of a railway must be defrayed before any dividend was paid to the debenture holders or the shareholders. The question was not one between us and the unfortunate fellaheen, but between us and the bondholders; and he was one of those who thought that it was not the taxpayers of this country, but the bondholders of Egypt, who ought to pay a portion of the expense of the necessary administration of that country. He therefore begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.

Amendment proposed, to leave out"£4,543,000," and insert"£4,043,000,"—(Mr. Labouchere,) —instead thereof.

Question proposed,"That'£4,543,000' stand part of the said Resolution."

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

said, he did not think the House would desire that he should enter into a discussion of this question at that hour of the night (12.45). As a matter of fact, he really had nothing to add to what he said in reply to a Question put by his hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) on the Motion that the Speaker should leave the Chair. On that occasion his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) suggested that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy should not press a Motion he had made, but should move a reduction of the Vote. The hon. Member for Northampton was anxious to take every opportunity of protesting against any payment by the taxpayers of this country for the occupation of Egypt, although he (the Marquess of Hartington) might point out that, a short time ago, his hon. Friend was one of those who urged that that occupation should be undertaken. He (the Marquess of Hartington) quite admitted that those who altogether objected to the occupation of Egypt by a British Army, and to any part of the expenditure involved by that occupation falling on the British taxpayers, were entitled to take every legitimate opportunity, and this was one of them, of protesting by their votes against such a policy; but it did not follow that the Government were obliged on every possible occasion to enter into a discussion of the matter. Especially at that moment they were not so obliged, because very shortly there was to be a discussion upon the arrangements which had lately been entered into by the Government and the European Powers with regard to Egyptian finances. That would be, in his opinion, the proper time to discuss whether the cost of the occupation should fall on the British taxpayers, the Egyptian taxpayers, or the bondholders. The Government had endeavoured to make the Egyptian bondholders contribute some of the expenses which were involved in the occupation. It was very fair to raise the question whether they contributed a sufficient amount; but a proper and convenient opportunity for the discussion of such a question would be when the general financial arrangements were submitted to the House. It would only be a waste of time at that late hour to go into the subject.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, that after the discussion which took place upon his Motion the other night, he should not have thought it necessary to raise the question again, especially as another opportunity for discussion would be afforded. But there was another subject in respect to which he was very much inclined to propose a reduction of the Vote by £500,000—a subject on which he did not know whether they would have any opportunity of a discussion—namely, the Bechuanaland Expedition. He could not hope that a proper discussion on this question could be raised at that time; but he felt bound to protest against £500,000 being expended in Bechuanaland in addition to the £750,000 voted last year. They seemed to forget that little wars became considerable wars. In Bechuanaland they were undertaking very serious responsibility and incurring very great expense without saying what they were going to do. He believed that originally it was understood they would only undertake the Expedition for a short time, and that then the Cape Government would take the matter off their hands. They had sent a very strong-handed General (Sir Charles Warren), who seemed to be giving great satisfaction to one class of the people and great dissatisfaction to another class. According to the statements of the Special Correspondent of The Standard—a gentleman who seemed very impartial—an extremely bad feeling was being created by Sir Charles Warren's proceedings. They had already expended £1,250,000 upon the Bechuanaland Expedition; there did not appear any probability of its being brought to an end for some considerable time yet; and that the Cape Government would take the affair into their own hands was more improbable than ever. This £1,250,000, he maintained, was all going into the pockets of the people of Stellaland and Cape Colony. ["Divide!"] He did not wish to say much more, but he wished to register a protest in the matter. They were paying for a waggon to traverse a distance of 80 miles, £120, which was at the rate of 30s. per mile. That was an enormous amount to be taken out of the pockets of the taxpayers at home to be put into the pockets of the Colonists. They had entered upon a little war which, at any time, might become a considerable one, and which might enormously increase the burdens imposed upon the taxpayers of the country.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

said, he did not intend to detain the House very long; but he wished just to explain why he had very great pleasure in supporting the Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). He thought, on the part of a Government which professed to have in it a great deal of the Radical element, the expenditure of hundreds and thousands of pounds on the maintenance of a British Army in Egypt and in the furtherance of a useless war in South Africa, was simply scandalous. Unfortunately, it was not in the power of the people of this country to check that expenditure now. The Government could have its way for the present, and until a General Election arrived; but he was perfectly certain that when a General Election did come the people would show, in no unequivocal manner, their strong approval of the action of those Members who had endeavoured to check the reckless expenditure of the Government. He had no doubt that the people of the country would return a very proper verdict against the sham Radicalism of Her Majesty's Government. The maintenance of a British Army in Egypt at the present time was altogether unjustifiable. He believed that the Earl of Northbrook, in his Report upon the condition of affairs in Egypt, had said that however good an English Army might be for the ordinary purposes of war, for police work it certainly was not fit. So far as he could make out, the money that was being expended—derived from the reduction of interest on the Debt—was intended to pay the soldiers in Egypt who were doing the work of police. He believed the Egyptian people had a very proper appreciation of the advantages of a Police Force in the country, and that they would pay that money twice over if they believed the result would be to rid the country of the garrisons which the Government wished this country to pay for in Egypt. It was quite time that Members of the House, both English and Irish, in the interests of humanity and of the toiling masses of the people of the United Kingdom, raised their voices against this reckless expenditure of Imperial funds on the maintenance of an Army in a country totally opposed to its presence. With reference to the South African part of the question, he had said before, from his place in the House, before Sir Charles Warren went out, that that officer's departure would very probably have the effect of involving Her Majesty's Government in another war with the Dutch portion of the inhabitants of the Capo of Good Hope. He had asked a Question that day with reference to Sir Charles Warren's mission, and he had received an answer from the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies which was not an answer likely to strengthen any impression which might exist in this country as to the possibility or probability of Sir Charles Warren bringing his mission to a successful issue in a peaceable way. On the contrary, as had been stated strongly and truly, the reports which had reached this country of the doings and actions of Sir Charles Warren all pointed to the conclusion that war was more likely than peace in consequence of the way in which he had aroused the ire of the Dutch inhabitants. The sending out of a filibustering Expedition such as that of Sir Charles Warren's was simply a provocation to the Dutch people in the Colony; and it must not be forgotten that they formed 80 per cent of the entire population. It was most galling to these people to have this country sending out their Generals and soldiers to "boss" them, so to speak. The people of Cape Colony were quite capable of settling their differences without the interference of English troops; and, therefore, as well as objecting to the garrison in Egypt, he should support the Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton. He thought it was simply disgraceful that when questions affecting the voting of such large sums of money as this came before the House the Benches should be empty. If there was a scene of excitement in the House, and it became the duty of Mr. Speaker, in the cause of Order, to suspend an hon. Member, the Benches on both sides of the House would be crowded—there would not be a seat vacant. Now, however, because the question was only one of voting away the taxes of the hardworking people of this country, there were only half-a-dozen independent Members present. He was glad to see a Member of the Government present who had a great character for Radicalism—although he was not proving his Radical principles by refusing to raise his voice on this occasion in support of the Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton. He (Mr. W. Redmond) was sorry there were not more hon. Members present to vote against the maintenance of a British garrison in Egypt and the carrying on of a costly and useless war in South Africa. Though he had no particular solicitude for the welfare of the British people, or the economizing of the expenditure of the British public, he should do everything in his power, whilst he had a seat in the House, to protest against British aggression.

Question put.

The House divided: —Ayes 67; Noes 18: Majority 49.—(Div. List, No. 74.)

Resolution agreed to. Ordered, That the Resolution, which, upon the 19th day of this instant March, was reported from the Committee of Supply, and then agreed to by the House, be now read; and the same was read, as followeth:— That 59,000 men and boys be employed for the Sea and Coast Guard Services for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1886, including 12,900 Royal Marines. Ordered, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide, during Twelve Months, for the Discipline and Regulation of the Army; and that the Marquis of HARTINGTON, The JUDGE ADVOCATE, and Sir THOMAS BRASSEY do prepare and bring it in. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill l04.]