§ (2.) £728,000, for Additional Expenditure for Army Services, consequent on the despatch of an Expeditionary Force to Egypt.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he should like to know where this money was to come from? When the Committee was asked to vote money in this manner—£728,000—there ought to be some explanation of the source from which it was to come. He would wish particularly to ask the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), who was one of the Gentlemen owing to whose presence on the Treasury Bench he felt some small amount of confidence in the Government. In a valuable speech that hon. Gentleman had said it was an exceedingly dangerous state of things when the gunpowder business was decided by the many, and the few paid for it. It was very well in this loose way to vote £700,000 odd; but there ought to be a clear understanding as to where it was to come from. He had seen it stated in the newspapers and other organs, that it was to be raised by an increase in the Income Tax. He could not suppose that the hon. Member for Liskeard would be a party, after what 1350 he had said in his valuable speech, to any such policy. For his part, he should like to see this money raised in one of two ways—one, by raising it from the landed interest, because, of course, as everybody knew, the landed interest owned their land upon a sort of feudal tenure, under which they were bound to provide for the defence of their country. But as he greatly feared that the Government would not adopt that plan, he would, in default, much like to see this money raised by a general tax on every individual in the country, poor as well as rich. Let every one of those shrieking Jingoes who went about calling upon the Government to go to war, now here and now there, understand that they would have to pay for the cost of these wars. Then, he thought, as his hon. Friend had said, they would be rather less inclined than they now were to advance the Jingo policy which he was sorry to see had been adopted by the Government, and which they had inherited from Gentlemen on the other side of the House. With regard to the special point before the Committee, he wanted to know something about one item. He found a "Special Gratuity" to the British Contingent of £90,000. He did not remember seeing among the numerous papers which he had received any statement as to how this money was to be distributed; but he had seen in the newspapers that it was to be distributed to the officers and soldiers. Of course, the soldiers' share would be very little, and the officers would get a great deal; but gathering that a Special Vote for Lord Wolseley was to be asked for, he wished to know whether any portion of this £90,000 was to be given to Lord Wolseley?
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he thought the more reasonable way of raising this money would be for the Government themselves to contribute largely to these extra charges. Observations having been made with respect to the action of the Conservative Party in promoting this war, he wished to free himself, as an inconsiderable Member of that Party, from such an imputation. Speaking on the Queen's Speech exactly a year ago, he had ventured to lay before the House the precise course that events were likely to take. Five months before the war began he had warned the Government that if they pursued the 1351 course they were then adopting they were bound to bring about a war; but they were unable to refrain from the error of their ways, and the war was brought about. The question now was, What was this sum to meet? What result was to be obtained from the payment of these charges? There were two results which the country desired at this moment to see—first, the predominance of British influence in Egypt; and, secondly, the good government of the Egyptian people. For the securing of both or either of these results it was absolutely necessary that the policy of the Government with regard to Egypt must be changed. Neither of these results could be obtained if the evacuation of Egypt was carried out within six months, as was suggested by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) a few days ago; and if the Government followed the advice of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), and left that unfortunate country, which they had reduced to anarchy, "to simmer, boil, and stew," they would refuse again to intervene to put down that anarchy, for the extraordinary reason that, having themselves deliberately nullified the results of their own previous expenditure of £6,000,000, they would deem it unadvisable to spend any further sum. He objected to granting this sum to the Government, because they had given no satisfactory statement with regard to their future policy in Egypt. No one knew whether the whole of this money would be dropped into the sea. Twelve months ago there was absolutely no necessity for this war at all. The whole of these charges might easily have been avoided if the Government had displayed a moderate amount of statesmenship and foresight. If they had refrained from the alliance with France, and treated the Turks fairly, or acted in time, the war might have been avoided and better results than had followed would have been attained by peaceful methods. The country had to thank the President of the Board of Trade and those who followed in his steps, for this unfortunate war. It had been stated that the Conservative Party were responsible for this war. In June and July the Conservatives urged firm action in defence of British life and property in Egypt, but only after the Ministry had allowed matters to drift into an 1352 impasse from which there was no other outlet. These two lines of policy were perfectly in harmony. When there was time to avoid the war, the Conservatives warned and implored the Government to take steps for that purpose; but when things had reached a climax, and when after the massacres it was impossible for us to withdraw without dishonour, then they did urge on the Government firmness and courage. They did not urge the bombardment of Alexandria, they only urged firm action; and those with whom he acted at that time advocated firm action in conjunction with the Sovereign of Egypt. In his opinion the bombardment of Alexandria was premature, and might perhaps have been avoided if a little time had been given to the Sultan and others to arrange the matter; but it was perfectly consistent with their previous conduct for the Conservatives to have advocated in June and July firmness of action—["Divide, divide!"] He had no wish to move to report Progress; but he should do so if he was interrupted by the barbaric shouts of hon. Members. It was perfectly consistent for the Conservatives to have advocated a firm policy in June and July, and yet now to condemn the war from the first as absolutely unnecessary. In view of the policy of the Government in the past and the many errors they have made, the apparent fruitlessness of the war, and the absence of any assurance that we should gain any good results, he thought the Government might fairly be asked to refrain from pressing this Vote to-night, and to hold it over till Monday, when there would be a better opportunity of considering it as it deserved. He should not move to report Progress; but he hoped Progress would be reported.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONI hope the Committee will be disposed to vote the whole of these Supplementary Estimates relating to Egypt tonight. My right hon. Friend has made a statement on the subject, and I think, although the hour is very late, we are quite prepared to answer any questions as to details. The hon. Member objects to anything at all on account of this war, which he considers unnecessary.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTUntil we have some assurance as to results.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONI think the hon. Member was not present this evening when we had an oppor- 1353 tunity of voting with the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), who moved a Resolution expressing the regret of the House that it should be called upon to place any burden on the people. That appears to be the most convenient form in which the hon. Member could have expressed his opinion. I do not think I need follow the hon. Member in this question; but in reply to the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), I think it was stated by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the course of last Session, that when the Estimates were presented the Government would propose a Vote for a gratuity to the troops and sailors engaged in Egypt. A Circular has been presented which states the principle upon which this gratuity will be applied. It will be issued according to the rank of the officers and men. The hon. Member asked what amount will be the share of Lord Wolseley? He will have £1,000, and the Chief of the Staff £500; other officers who were in command will receive amounts according to their respective ranks. The hon. Member asked a question respecting the annuity to be proposed by the Prime Minister for Lord Wolseley. That has nothing whatever to do with this; it is altogether a separate arrangement. I believe it is the intention of the Prime Minister at the proper time to make a proposal to the House, both on account of Lord Wolseley and of Lord Alcester, according to the invariable practice when Peerages have been conferred for Naval or Military services. That, of course, has nothing whatever to do with the share of this gratuity to Lord Wolseley according to usage.
COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he understood the noble Marquess to say that, if possible, the Government intended to get through the whole of these Supplementary Estimates relating to Egypt this evening. Of course, the House was very willing on special occasions to make personal sacrifices when the Public Service rendered that necessary, and in regard to the first Vote—that with respect to India—it was one that might be agreed to; but he hoped that if the Government met with the indulgence of the Committee, and were allowed to take that Vote, they would then consent to postpone the other Votes. He thought that would be a fair compromise at that time 1354 of night. On the other hand, he should like to ask the noble Marquess whether he would give some undertaking that either on the Report of Supply, or, still more probably, when the Army Estimates were brought forward, the fullest opportunity would be given for discussing points which would) naturally have arisen now, but which hon. Members had postponed in consideration of the time of night, and the circumstances under which this Vote was proposed? For his own part, there were several questions which he should like to raise, but which it was impossible to raise at the present time. There was also a question on the new form of the Vote as it necessarily stood in the Estimates. He thought it very inconvenient to have various questions mixed up upon one Vote, and that they would be better distributed over several Votes. If the noble Marquess would give this assurance, there would be every effort made on this side of the House to assist the Government.
LORD HENRY LENNOXwished to make an appeal to the noble Marquess. He had no intention to discuss the question whether the Egyptian Campaign was right or wrong; he only wished to ask the noble Marquess to state now what was the condition of health of the troops still in Egypt, and whether there was any truth or not in the accounts published in the newspapers showing that the mortality among these men was on the increase? He should take an opportunity later on, in fuller detail, of presenting to the House his view of the action of the troops in Egypt; and his firm conviction was that had the necessary steps been taken when the war ended the frightful mortality which had occurred might easily have been averted. He did not, howevor, wish to detain the Committee now, but merely to ask whether the noble Marquess could give the country any reassuring account of the health of the British troops now forming the Army of Occupation in Egypt? On a later occasion he would state the reasons for his belief that a great deal of the mortality might have been avoided.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)An appeal having been made from the opposite Bench, I may say that it is practically necessary, unless the House intends to sit on Saturday, that the Supplementary 1355 Estimates should be finished on Monday. These Supplementary Estimates consist of these three or four Votes in connection with Egypt, and of some small Supplementary Estimates relating to Civil Service and Revenue Expenditure. It is absolutely necessary that we should close these on Monday, and therefore I hope the Committee will consent to finish the Egyptian Votes now and take the other Estimates on Monday. With respect to what the right lion, and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Stanley) said as to general questions arising out of these Votes, I think that is reasonable; but any questions upon small details we shall be prepared, to answer at once, and any general questions might be asked afterwards. With reference to the question of the noble Lord (Lord Henry Lennox), I am not able to say more as to the present rate of mortality among the soldiers, than that it has been steadily on the decrease for some months past. As to his suggestion that we did not take proper steps to provide against insanitary conditions, I may say that as soon as the war was over we sent out a most experienced Engineer officer, General Sir Andrew Clarke, with carte blanche to do whatever was necessary in regard to sanitary arrangements. The health of the troops has steadily improved since then, and the sickness is now as low as 7 per cent.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he thought the suggestion of his right hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Stanley) was that this Vote should be taken, and Progress should then be reported. He thought that a reasonable proposal, especially as it was distinctly understood that the Committee should not proceed after a quarter past 1. It would be unreasonable to take the Egyptian Votes with so small a House as there now was; and he should feel it his duty to protest against that, and to divide the Committee upon it.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)Do you object to taking the Egyptian Votes?
§ MR. W. H. SMITHYes, beyond this.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)Does that mean that the Vote for the Navy should not be taken to-night?
§ MR. W. H. SMITHYes.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)Unless we get 1356 through these Votes now, the House will have to sit a very long time on Monday, as there are a great number of ordinary Supplementary Estimates to be taken.
§ MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he had been informed by the hon. Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. Winn) that, as he understood, the Government did not intend to propose any Vote that evening after a quarter to 1 o'clock. It was now a quarter past 1, and, therefore, considering the understanding he had referred to, he thought they were justified in objecting to go further than the Vote then before the Committee.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, he had certainly not given any such promise such as that indicated by the hon. Member opposite. The only promise given was that the Government would not begin the Estimates after half-past 12 o'clock.
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, there was a great deal of uncertainty as to the cost of transport during the war, and upon that subject the Committee had received no information. They were desirous of knowing what the total cost amounted to. There appeared on the present Estimate. £20,000 for transport at home, and also a sum of £60,000 for transport abroad, and he would be glad to know what was the nature and extent of the transport which these items represented? This was a question which certainly deserved serious consideration on the part of the Committee. If hon. Members would turn to the end of the Vote they would see that a deduction was made of the sum of £40,000 for the sale of transport animals; and with respect to that credit, he ventured to say that if the original cost of the animals was £80,000, they were not likely to get for them so large a sum as £40,000 when they were sold. Therefore, he concluded that the cost of animals for the whole war was not that which appeared on the Estimates under the items he had specified. There had been great complaints as to the cost of transport in connection with the Expedition to Egypt, and he thought the Committee had a right to information as to what had been the cost of the animals employed, and, indeed, as to the whole cost of transport during the war. The two items of £80,000 and £20,000 were quite insufficient for this purpose, and he would therefore appeal to the 1357 noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War, if possible, to furnish the Committee with some explanation with regard to the enormous cost of the Transport Service in connection with the recent operations in Egypt.
§ SIR ARTHUR HAYTERsaid, the item of £20,000 was for the conveyance of troops from various parts of England to the port of embarkation. The item of £80,000 was for the cost of animals. As the hon. and gallant Baronet would be aware, the Turkish Government had offered great resistance to our endeavour to bring mules from Smyrna and Beyrout, and that refusal on the part of the Turkish authorities had very much increased the cost of transport animals. The amount in the Estimate was the price of the animals, a great number of which were still engaged with the Army in Egypt. Some were at Malta, and a portion had been brought home.
§ LORD ALGERNON PERCYsaid, it was well known that some of the Cavalry regiments, and a great portion of the Artillery left at home after the despatch of the troops to Egypt, were denuded of their horses for the purpose of equipping the troops sent abroad. He saw an item of £60,000 in Vote 1, Sub-head M, for the purchase of horses, and he wished to know whether that sum was for the purpose of defraying the expense's of regiments and batteries left at home, or whether it had been expended on the purchase of an extra number of animals for the troops sent abroad?
§ SIR ARTHUR HAYTERsaid, the sum just referred to included not only the cost of horses abroad, but also the cost of horses required to fill up the ranks of those regiments which remained at home. There had been great losses amongst the horses of the 4th Dragoon Guards—not less than 169—which had to be made up, and the cost of these was included in the charge.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he strongly objected to voting money in the small hours of the morning. However, as they had gone so far with this Supply Estimate, he supposed they must go through with it; but he hoped it would be on the distinct understanding that ample time would be allowed for future discussion of the Estimate on the Report. It seemed to him there had hardly been sufficient calculation when the last Esti- 1358 mates were framed, because the amount asked for under this Vote had been since almost doubled. He inferred from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the Government took credit to themselves for the correctness of their Estimates, when he said that the Estimates for this country were under-Estimates, and that the Estimates for India were over-Estimates, and that the two differences balanced each other. But he (Sir George Campbell) was not one of those who believed that two blacks made a white, and it seemed to him of very great importance that the responsible Officers should not be allowed to mislead the country into supposing that they could carry on war at a cheaper rate than was possible. He was ready to admit that the war had been carried on with a moderation of expense that was creditable to the Government; but he thought it would have been much better to have over-estimated than under-estimated its cost. He would like to know why, in view of all the circumstances, the original Estimate had been so much exceeded? There had been no continuation of the war beyond the period which Her Majesty's Government had contemplated. On the contrary, it had been brought to an end earlier than might have been expected. They were told, in fact, that the only error in the Campaign was that the battle of Tel-el-Kebir was fought one day earlier than was intended. The resistance of the Egyptians collapsed immediately after this event; and it seemed to him that, the war having been brought to a conclusion guilder most favourable circumstances, there was no justification of the under-estimate of its cost.
SIR HENRY FLETCHERsaid he wished to know why civil medical practitioners, for whose services there was a charge in the Estimate of £4,000, had been sent out to Egypt? His reason for making this inquiry was that he thought under the new system ample provision ought to have been made for medical officers connected with the Army. And in making allusion to this subject, perhaps, as an old soldier, he might be permitted to suggest to the military authorities the consideration of the question as to whether they could not see their way to revert to the old system under which surgeons were attached to the 1359 regiments. He considered himself entitled to call the attention of the Committee to this subject while the present Vote was under discussion. He believed that the Indian Contingent and the regiments which came to Egypt from India were supplied with their medical officers on the old system under which he had the honour of serving many years ago. The present system of medical officers being attached to regiments for a few months only, he regarded as most detrimental to the Military Service. On the other hand, the old system, under which medical officers were permanently attached, was most favourable to the medical officers themselves as well as to the men and the commanding officers. Without wishing to speak too strongly on the subject, he was bound to say that the present system had not turned out altogether as well as could have been wished; and therefore he again urged the military authorities to consider whether it would not be well to return to the old system under which medical officers were permanently, instead of as now temporarily, attached. There was another item, respecting which he wished to ask for some explanation from his hon. and gallant Friend and old brother officer, whom he congratulated on his new appointment as Surveyor General of Ordnance. He observed a charge of £15,000 for timber, and would be glad to know where the timber came from and what had become of it? There was also a charge of £3,000, under Sub-head F, for fuel, which he presumed was for the engines sent out to Egypt. Again, under Sub-head C, there was a charge of £20,000 for metals, and he asked whether these were for the railway from Cairo in the direction of Tel-el-Kebir? He did not wish to offer any objection to these items, but simply asked for an explanation of them. There was also the item of £30,000 for accoutrements, to which the same remark applied. This was a large sum indeed, because it was always supposed that when troops were sent out of the country they were fully equipped and accoutred. He believed there had been extra clothing furnished to some regiments—some Kharkee had been supplied to them—but he hardly imagined that the cost of this amounted to £30,000.
§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTONremarked, that all the items for gratuities 1360 appeared in the aggregate. With reference to the charge of £90,000 for Special Gratuity to British Contingent, he asked the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War, if that included payments to the officers of the British regiments which came from India to Egypt? As the noble Marquess was aware, the mere fact of the Native regiments coming from India entitled them to double pay; whereas the European troops who came from India lost their Indian pay, although both these classes of troops fought side by side. There was another point upon which he thought explanation should be given, and he referred to a feeling which generally prevailed that the sick and wounded were not properly looked after. Could the noble Marquess state whether there had been any change in the Committee recently appointed?
MR. BRANDsaid, in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Horsham, that the item for timber was in connection with the increased work at the Woolwich manufactories. With regard to the accoutrements, his hon. and gallant Friend must recollect that 10,000Eeserve men had been called out whose accoutrements, which were taken out of store, had to be replaced.
SIR HENRY FLETCHERsaid, he hoped some larger suits of clothing would be kept in store. There was a man in his district so enormously stout that none of the suits in store would fit him, and he was in consequence unable to go out to Egypt.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, it was desirable that the Committee should have some clear explanation as to whether the English troops on the Indian Establishment received a gratuity, and, if so, whether they were paid out of this Vote or out of the Indian Exchequer? He presumed they were treated on the same terms as the troops sent from England; but he thought it desirable that the point should be made clear.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, the British troops that came from India received precisely the same amount of gratuity as the Indian troops, but so long as they remained on the Indian Establishment the gratuity was charged against the Indian Government. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) had asked why the Vote of Credit had been exceeded. But he 1361 thought the hon. Gentleman must be aware that it was impossible to form a very accurate estimate of the sum required for warlike purposes. There had been some very obvious reasons why the amount estimated in July last should be exceeded. In the first place, the number of troops despatched considerably exceeded the number then contemplated. In the next place, there was a large increase in the quantity of Ordnance stores that were sent to Alexandria. Again, the estimate for horses was exceeded on account of the great mortality which prevailed amongst them during the campaign, and his hon. Friend the Financial Secretary had explained that there had been a considerable increase in the cost of horses in consequence of the Turkish Government refusing to allow mules to be despatched from Smyrna and Beyrout. Seeing, therefore, that there were so many items which it was impossible to estimate accurately beforehand, he did not think that the amount by which the July Estimate had been exceeded was a very large one. With regard to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Horsham (Sir Henry Fletcher) and the noble Lord opposite (Lord George Hamilton) in reference to the medical arrangements and the treatment of the sick and wounded, he wished to say that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, before he left the War Office, and almost immediately after the return of the troops, appointed a Committee to inquire into complaints which had been made of the failure of the transport and medical arrangements. That Committee, as was stated in reply to a Question put yesterday, had, he believed, entered very exhaustively into these questions, but had not yet made its Report, which, however, might be expected in a week or two.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, the Financial Secretary had replied only to a portion of the question of the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) with regard to the amount credited at the end of the Vote for the sale of animals—namely, £40,000. It was well known that for weeks after the conclusion of military operations mules continued to come in by thousands—in fact, "it rained mules." The reply of the hon. and gallant Gentleman on the Government Bench did not state whether the sum 1362 of £40,000 represented the amount realized by the sale of all the animals employed in the war, or only applied to the animals for which there was the charge of £80,000. The distinction was a very important one, and the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex had pointed out that £40,000 was an unusual recoupment upon an outlay of £80,000. He therefore again asked whether the £40,000 applied to the whole of the animals purchased, or only to a portion of them?
§ MR. TOMLINSONasked for an explanation of the item of £5,000 for losses under Sub-head M.
§ SIR ARTHUR HAYTERsaid, this sum included the compensation to officers for the loss of their horses, as well as compensation to men for clothing and accoutrements lost; and, considering the dimensions of the Expedition, he did not think the charge excessive.
COLONEL STANLEYsaid, the question had been asked in connection with Vote 4, why there was a charge of £4,000 for civilian medical practitioners? He had not understood that a reply had been given by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite; but he presumed the charge was incurred to replace the medical officers sent abroad with the troops.
§ SIR ARTHUR HAYTERsaid, the sum of £40,000 was the whole sum realized by the sale of animals. The item for medical practitioners was, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman supposed, to replace the medical officers whose services were required with the regiments sent out to Egypt.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, there was great curiosity to know what conclusion the War Department had arrived at with regard to the fuses for the shells used by the Navy in the bombardment of Alexandria. It might, perhaps, not be convenient for the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote to make a statement on the question at that moment; but he wished it to be distinctly understood that the matter would have to be dealt with either on the present or the forthcoming Estimates. A very satisfactory explanation would have to be given to the House and the country upon the point, as also with regard to such mysterious items under Vote 12, as £115,500 for Miscellaneous Stores. There had been a distinct failure of the stores 1363 supplied to the Navy by the War Department, and the Committee and the country ought to know whether they were to have efficient munitions of war in future, or whether they were to be liable to the very great misadventure which had recently occurred.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, there must be an understanding that the question would be taken up at a time when more consideration could be given to it. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer must be aware that during the last two or three Sessions, Estimates had been passed at hours when it was impossible properly to enter into them. He had no desire to embarrass the Government; but his question referred to a matter of very great importance which had arisen in connection with the late war. If, therefore, the question were postponed, there must be a distinct understanding that an opportunity would be given for full discussion hereafter.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, there was the strongest desire on the part of the Government to give the most ample opportunities for discussing the Estimates. But he must remind the Committee that although the Government might be able to do much, they could not make time; and if the House insisted upon discussing the Address to Her Majesty for 11 days, a very appreciable inroad was thereby made upon the time at the disposal of the Government. It was impossible that they could then give so full an opportunity for discussion as it might be very desirable to afford later on in the Session; and all he could say at the present moment was, that the Government would make the very beet arrangement they could for the discussion of the Estimates.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next.
§ Committee to sit again upon Monday next.
§ House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock till Monday next.