ARMY ESTIMATES, 1892–3. (Hansard, 14 March 1892)

§ (12.0.) GENERAL SIR CHARLES FRASER (Lambeth, N.)
Though baffled in Committee and prevented from offering the remarks I then intended to make with regard to recruiting for the Army and the state of our Reserves, I believe I have an opportunity now. But I do not think this is quite an appropriate occasion. I therefore ask the Leader of the House if he will give an opportunity for the discussion of the Report of Lord Wantage's Committee with the evidence on some day before Whitsuntide? To such an opportunity I should like to defer what I have to say. There is, I believe, a very general wish that such an opportunity should be given. If, however, such an opportunity will not be given I must endeavour now to put forward my ideas as an old soldier, regretting to have to trouble the House at this hour.

§ (12.1.) THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.
I understand that my hon. and gallant Friend desires that I should interrupt him, and I therefore say that I shall be only too glad to meet the wish he has expressed that some day before Whitsuntide should be fixed to discuss the Report of Lord Wantage's Committee, when the House has before it the evidence upon which the Report of that Committee is based. I hope this will meet the views of my hon. and gallant Friend, whom we are sorry not to have heard the other night.

§ (12.2.) GENERAL SIR C. C. FRASER
I beg leave to return thanks to the right hon. Gentleman, and I may say on the part 848 of military Members in this House that they hive never the slightest intention of staying the work of the country, but on the contrary in their simple line they always do everything they can to carry out that work.

§ (12.2.) SIR WALTER FOSTER (Derby, Ilkeston)
I desire to call the attention of the House to the fact that in Committee on these Votes the other night considerable feeling was expressed on this side of the House, and there was at least much surprise on both sides at the manner in which this Vote was taken. My two hon. Friends, the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lockwood) and the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire (Dr. Farquharson) were prevented from bringing forward the case of a distinguished officer of the Army Medical Service, and of drawing attention to circumstances affecting the past and future of that gentleman. I think it would be only fair if the Leader of the House would consent now to postpone the Report of this Vote.

§ (12.3.) THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BRODRICK,) Surrey, Guildford
In reference to the particular case which the hon. Member for York desired to bring on, I understand that my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State (Mr. Stanhope), in assenting to give a day, on the consideration of another Vote, to the discussion of the Report of Lord Wantage's Committee, in no way wished to preclude a more general discussion, and on this understanding, I believe, the hon. Members referred to, determined not to raise the question to-night, intending to bring it on when the Vote allowed the opportunity of general discussion.

§ (12.4.) MR. MACNEILL (Donegal, S.)
I did not take any part in the discussion of this Vote in Committee, because I thought it more proper to leave the Debate to hon. and gallant Gentlemen, more conversant with its details, and I only now briefly call attention to 849 one item to which I think objection should be taken. It does not come distinctly and plainly within the Army Estimates properly constituted; it is an extraneous item found in an obscure corner of this Estimate. On page 2 at the bottom will be found a note D. in explanation of the Grant in Aid to India, showing a decrease of £102,400 as compared with last year, and this strikes me as about as heartless a job as was ever put before the House. In this euphemistic way there is indicated an increase of the charges on India on account of troops serving there of more than £100,000. If we look at Vote "A" we find that all this sum is almost exclusively in regard to men serving in India, but the Estimate can be either inflated or diminished by simply arranging with the Government of India for reducing or augmenting them. Now, I want to know in the first place, whether £1,700,000 is the general proportion taken from the Indian Government for Home charges, and why this year is an extra £100,000 extracted from a starving people? This I should think is not a time to augment Indian expenditure, and this I think has been fairly brought before the Government. In calling attention to this matter in the discharge of public duty, I may complain of the absence of the Secretary of State for War.

§ MR. MACNEILL
I was not aware of that. While I regret his absence I shall more regret the cause. The right hon. Gentleman is an efficient organiser of great Departments, and he having special knowledge both of Indian and Military Departments I intended to put these matters before him. But, perhaps, the Financial Secretary will answer just three questions; whether all the troops serving in India are paid for by the Indian Government; whether £1,700,000 is taken from the Indian Government and applied to the reduction of so-called Home charges; and why this amount of £1,700,000 is now further augmented? I ask these questions, not out of any desire to embarrass the Government but I do think that on principles of humanity we ought not, at such a time as this to take another £100,000 from the people of India when we know that famine is raging and that human lives may be sacrificed. I do not think the people of 850 England like increased taxation, but I think they would rather submit to it than that it should be imposed on their Indian fellow-subjects at this time.

§ (12.8.) MR. BRODRICK
In the unavoidable absence of my right hon. Friend I will endeavour to reply to the hon. Gentleman on the point he has raised. As regards the actual payment by the Indian Government, it is for effective Home charges, and this payment represents what, after very careful inquiry at which the Indian Government is represented, the extra expense to which the British Army is put in recruiting and maintaining men solely for the benefit of the Indian Government. The Indian Government is carefully guarded against paying anything that should fall to the British Exchequer, had the Indian Army not been in existence; and in reference to deferred pay and other matters, the Indian Government pays for services rendered and no more. The excess of £100,000, to which the hon. Member alludes, is more apparent than real. The actual charges for some years have been under the consideration of a Committee, of which Lord Northbrook is chairman, who as the hon. Gentleman knows, has been at the War Office, and has also been Governor General of India, and with ample knowledge is an extremely impartial person to conduct such an inquiry. The Committee has adjudicated upon these Home charges, and it is understood that the Indian Government made certain reserves in past years for adjustments to be made at the end of this year in respect of the last three or four years. The exact sum is to be settled in a few days, and the money, I understand, is to be paid, not by fresh taxation, but from a fund which has accrued during the last two or three years for this special adjustment.