REPORTS TO PARLIAMENT. (Hansard, 22 March 1897)

§ MR. LOUGH
moved the following new clause:— The Treasury shall report to Parliament whenever any excess is allowed to be so applied, and shall in such report specify how and out of what items the savings are expected to be made, and what is the amount of the estimated excess on each item. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had promised that this point would be dealt with, but it ought to be in the Bill. The clause seemed a reasonable one, because it was evident, from the large round sums which were taken, that there would be large savings out of them. As the Bill now stood, any amount saved upon any particular item might be applied by the Secretary of State for War to any new works, even to works not specified in the Bill at all. The Committee should have some details of what could be done in this way. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would yield something on this point. The clause was only carrying out the promise which had already been given.

§ MR. BRODRICK
said the hon. Member wished to secure that all possible information should be given, as well as control by Parliament. The Government had no desire to exclude Parliament from any information or control. The hon. Member seemed to think that the Treasury and the War Office would be able to exchange gigantic sums from one head to another; but he seemed to forget that the Treasury existed in order to check the extravagant use of powers by any Department. If the Government did not give the whole of the items in all the heads of the schedule it was not because there was any desire to conceal from Parliament what they were doing; but on defence works especially it was not desirable that we should tell the whole world what we were spending at each place. Parliament had never asked hit her to that this should be done, but if the clause were inserted this would be the effect of it, and any check obtained would be gained at the expense of publicity, which it was the desire of Parliament to avoid. The War Office had undertaken to lay before the House every year, not merely the statements of the expenditure in the past year, but also an estimate of the probable expenditure for the following year.

§ MR. LOUGH
asked why that promise should not be incorporated in the Bill It should be borne in mind that the right hon. Gentleman might not always be in his present position, and how in these circumstances could the right hon. Gentleman pledge his successors?

§ MR. BRODRICK
said that they were following the previous practice. The War Office had always shown this expenditure, and it was not necessary to put the provision in the Bill.

THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
, in reply to Mr. Lough, on a point of order, said the hon. Member was right in assuming that the Amendments on the Paper to the schedule were not in order. He did not say that Amendments could not be put down that would be in order.

§ MR. LOUGH
said he should be glad to know whether he could put down an Amendment on which he could discuss the question of the fortifications of London.

THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
said it was not his business to tell the hon. Member how to frame his Amendment.

§ MR. J. P. FARRELL (Cavan, W.)
Is the Amendment of the hon. Member for Derry out of order?

THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
Certainly.

§ MR. J. P. FARRELL
Then I cannot ask as to the amount spent in Ireland?

THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
I do not think that Debate could arise upon that matter.

§ MR. CALDWELL
supposed they were entitled to ask for an explanation where these defensive works were to be.

§ MR. BRODRICK
said lie had already dealt with the point.

§ MR. J. H. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs)
asked what was the expenditure in Scotland?

§ MR. BRODRICK
said if they began to give the expenditure in different places they would be giving that information to foreign countries which they had already declined to give.

§ MR. MUNRO FERGUSON (Leith Burghs)
said that there was one point to which he wished to invite attention. A portion of this money was to go to providing a camp of exercise, but that camp was situated at a great distance from a large number of corps in Scotland. The policy of the War Office had been to consolidate the armed forces in one centre, but this left the Militia and Volunteers in Scotland without fair facilities for exercise. He was not asking for any addition to the Vote any more than lie was suggesting any reduction of the Vote, but he hoped that the policy indicated by the Bill did not mean that the question of a camp in Scotland was to be debarred from the consideration of the War Office. There should be a northern as well as a southern camp, and without that he believed it would be difficult to secure recruits for the Regulars and efficiency in the Scottish regiments. There ought to be, for the proper exercising of the troops, a camp in the North of England or in. Scotland.

§ MR. BRODRICK
said he fully realised the importance of the point raised by the hon. Member. In Scotland they raised some of the finest regiments in the service. His hon. Friend had not developed any policy to-night. One of the difficulties they had to meet in Scotland was, that the country was so prosperous, that it was not easy to find an extent of land suitable for the purpose at a moderate figure. At the same time they wished to make military instruction as accessible 1141 as possible to the regiments north of the Tweed.

MR. J. P. FARREIL
complained of the massing of troops in huge barracks, thus taking them away from the small towns. He asked whether any portion of this large sum of money would be spent in making the Longford barracks sufficient for the purposes of a headquarters barracks. He did not think it was quite fair to the people of the locality to deprive them of the presence of the troops, who were a source of revenue to the town. He thought the question deserved some attention, and if the right hon. Gentleman did not see his way to give some satisfactory reply, he would have to ask his Friends to go to a division.

§ SIR JOHN COLOMB (Great Yarmouth)
understood that part of this money was to be spent on barracks in Wynberg, and be would like to ask what was the nature of the tenure of the land on which the barracks were to be constructed. So far as he could ascertain, land for Imperial purposes could only be obtained and held subject to the goodwill of a self-governing colony. He would also like to know whether it was contemplated that the troops to be accommodated in these barracks were to be used for the general purposes of a self-governing colony which did not contribute to their support, or for the Imperial purpose of garrisoning the sea works and maintaining the Imperial base.

§ MR. J. COLVILLE (Lanark, N.E.)
said it was desirable that the Committee should know what proportion of these large stuns of money was to be expended in Scotland. Seeing that Scotland paid more than her fair share to the Imperial Exchequer, she ought to benefit by the expenditure.

§ THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL WILLIAMS,) Birmingham, S.
, in reply to his hon. and gallant Friend, said that, in the opinion of the Military authorities, the proposals brought forward by the War Office with respect to the Cape of Good Hope were the best that could be made in the national interest. He was not able to say exactly the terms on which the land at Wynberg would be acquired and held, but his hon. and gallant Friend might be perfectly satisfied that no building would take place there unless the War Office authorities were 1142 sure that the tenure was secure. With regard to the Longford barracks, he could not tell the hon. Gentleman who raised the question, for reasons which had been accepted by the Committee, any details with regard to the expenditure. It was not in the public interest that such details should be given. Of course, he could quite understand the interest taken by the hon. Gentleman in the matter; but unfortunately these things had to be determined, not on considerations such as the wishes of the inhabitants of a locality, but according to the views of the Military authorities, and they came to the conclusion that the headquarters ought, for military reasons, to be removed front Longford.

§ SIR J. COLOMB
asked whether he was to understand that money was to be spent, on a site the tenure of which had not been settled?

§ MR. POWELL WILLIAMS
No.

§ SIR J. COLOMB
thought it was most desirable that the Committee should be perfectly clear as to what they were doing in this matter. [" Hear, hear !"]

§ MR. BRODRICK
said there was no difficulty about the, site. They did not, propose to build on land the title to which was not secure.

§ SIR J. COLOMB
But can my right hon. Friend say what the title is?

§ MR. BRODRICK
said that that was a solicitor's question. He was not in possession of the titles under which barracks were held by Great Britain till over the world. All he could say was that the Department would take good care that the title was secure before they built on a single inch of the ground. There was no case that he could remember within the last ten years in which the title of land acquired by the War Office had proved defective.

§ SIR J. COLOMB
said that when he was told that the military authorities considered this the best site, he wanted to know whether they considered it so front the point of view of the troops accommodated there being used for Imperial purposes, or for the general purposes of the Cape Colony.["Hear, hear !"]

§ MR. BRODRICK
said that the General Officer Commanding in a Colony had first to see to the defence of the Imperial Coaling Station; and, secondly, to make use the troops for such general purposes 1143 as might be found necessary in the particular colony.

§ SIR J. COLOMB
said he would ask the right hon. Gentleman how far Wynberg was from the Cape, position at Table Bay? ["Hear, hear!"]

MR. BRODIRICK
said it was at a distance of about eight miles. Surely it was not supposed that our relations with foreign Powers were such that we dare not keep any of the troops more than 100 yards from the guns. Every man could be on the spot in a couple of hours.

§ MR. DALZIEL
thought that I he question asked as to the tenure of the land was a very reasonable one. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would agree that, in view of the number of imperial troops stationed in South Africa during recent years, this expenditure was a very large one indeed. Here they bad a proposed expenditure for hospital and barrack accommodation of £160,000 in one particular place. He wanted to know the facts upon which it was determined to incur this expenditure; what recommendations were made, and who was responsible for them? He also wished to know whether there had been any communication with Cape Colony to ascertain whether or not the Government of that Colony would bear any portion of this expenditure? Was the British taxpayer to have to pay unaided for the defence of the Cape? Had the Cape Government been asked whether they could bear any portion of this expenditure, and was there anything to show that they had been consuited and approved of this expenditure?

§ MR. HERBERT LEWIS
said that he had been to Wynberg, and that the situation was a very fine one. It was one of the most beautiful suburbs of Cape Town, and certainly the officers and men quartered there would have no cause to complain from a social point of view. The question of tenure was important because the colony, it must be remembered, was not, exclusively a British colony. There were certain circumstances that made it very important that the question of tenure should be gone into very carefully indeed. With, reference to the defence works, on which, a sum of £1,120,000 was to be spent, he wished to know where the money was to go. In connection with the Naval Works Bill they had had a full statement as to the places where the money was to be spent, and as to the, 1144 particular objects in view. Why was not similar information given on this occasion? At all events more general information ought to be supplied.

§ MR. LOUGH
said that the proposed distribution of the money was very bad indeed. For example, a sum of £600,000 was set aside for expenditure in Ireland on a class of work which many people disapproved of entirely. What the Irish people wanted was a reduction of taxation, and the attempt to compensate them for their over-taxation by extravagant naval or military expenditure in Ireland would not answer. It would have been far better to use the money in making some sort of provision for our troops on Salisbury Plain. The Bill provided for nothing except the purchase of the land. There was no provision for the erection of any buildings on this waste place near Stonehenge. The first item in the class of defence works was £97,000 for the fortification of London. On this subject a great deal of discussion had taken place in the public Press, but in that House it had been treated as a great mystery. He believed that, as a matter of fact, anyone was at liberty to walk round the existing defences, which were in most absurd places on the hills round London.

THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
This question was raised and thoroughly discussed on the first clause, and the hon. Member is not entitled to repeat the whole of his arguments, or to raise the question again.

§ MR. LOUGH
said that there was an item of £260,000 proposed to be expended in St. Lucia. With regard to this they had not heard a word from the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Some justification ought to be given for this extraordinary item. It was for defraying the cost of transferring, the military headquarters from Barbadoes to St. Lucia. That, as far as they knew, Barbadoes was the best place for the headquarters. There were 200,000 people in the island, while in St. Lucia there were only 45,000. With Barbadoes there was considerable trade, but there was hardly any with St. Lucia, which, he understood, was a most unhealthy place. There were only about 700 or 800 soldiers in Barbadoes, and he did not understand why it should be necessary to spend £260,000 in housing that handful of men in St. Lucia. In 1145 Mauritius it was proposed to spend £169,000 on barracks and other works, and here again no justification had been given for the expenditure. Why were these large sums of money to be spent in remote parts? He did not believe in the plan of scattering the Army all over the world. It would be much more satisfactory to provide good military accommodation in the capital of the Empire.

THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
That is quite irrelevant to the quest ion before the Committee.

§ SIR J. COLOMB
said that the justification for the steps which the Government proposed to take with regard to St. Lucia was supplied by the Report of Lord Carnarvon's Commission on Imperial Defence, a Commission that sat for three years and took evidence as to the most economical arrangements for the defence of the Empire as a whole. The Commission found that it was absolutely necessary to secure Jamaica and St. Lucia as strategic points in the West Indies. At present we had a military force divided between Barbadoes and St. Lucia, which was an inconvenient and expensive arrangement. The Government were quite right in what they intended doing. He thought that they were also right in not erecting barracks or other buildings on Salisbury Plain. For the training of troops, what was wanted was ample space and perfect liberty of movement.

§ GENERAL LAURIE
would have liked to have placed himself on record as opposed to any expenditure on permanent works for the defence of London, but as this had been ruled out of order, he wished to indorse what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member with reference to the undesirability of erecting permanent buildings on Salisbury Plain.

THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
There is no proposal in the Bill for erecting permanent buildings on Salisbury Plain, and therefore no discussion can he raised upon the subject.

§ MR. W. ALLAN (Gateshead)
entirely agreed with some of the proposals of the Government. He approved, for example, of the proposal to spend £;67,000 in providing better accommodation for the garrison at Bermuda. He knew that not long ago the accommodation for the troops there was of the vilest possible description. He highly approved of the expenditure in making coaling stations 1146 more healthy. The radius of the action of our fleet would be determined entirely by the convenience with which ships could be coaled. Bermuda was most inadequately fortified. St. Lucia also needed proper fortification. The Mauritius ought to be the centre of our West Indian coaling stations. He was glad that money was to be spent there, because the Mauritius had been too long neglected by the military authorities. At a short distance from the Mauritius was Madagascar. At any time the Suez Canal might be closed, and we should have to find our way to India by the Cape. Besides properly fortifying the Mauritius, there ought to be ample dockage for ships. But we had no docks there. Sierra Leone and St. Helena also required coaling stations and fortifications. He believed the money proposed to be spent in fortifying coaling stations would be well spent and contribute to the safety of the Empire.

§ MR. T. C. HEDDERWICK (Wick Burghs)
wished to press upon the War Office the desirability of erecting barracks at Dingwall.

THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
said that would arise on War Office administration, and nut under this Bill.

§ MR. CALDWELL
alluded to the fortifications to be erected at Cape Town at a cost of £160,000, and said that, considering they would provide local as well as Imperial defence, we ought to stipulate fur an indefeasible title to the land on Which they would stand. The land should also not be exempted from local taxation.

THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
ruled that this might properly be discussed on one of the War Office Votes, but it could not be discussed now.

§ MR. CALDWELL
then asked what defence works were to be undertaken in Scotland. The War Office said the matter must be kept secret lest foreign Governments might know what our intentions were. But foreigners found out as soon as the works were commenced. The money would come out of the imperial purse, and Scotland, as part of the United Kingdom, should know what portion of the money would be spent there. He also wished to know how much of the money was to be devoted to the defence of the Clyde.

§ MR. BRODRICK
It is intended to spend money on the defences both of the Forth and the Clyde.

§ MR. LEWIS
asked whether anything was to be done for the fortification of Holyhead Harbour? He thought they ought also to have some adumbration of what was to be done in regard to the defence of London.

§ SIR J. FERGUSSON (Manchester, N.E.)
rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

§ COLONEL WELBY (Taunton)
asked the right hon. Gentleman what accommodation was going to be provided for the troops who were going through their musketry course On Salisbury Plain? There were men who were attached permanently to a range who would suffer during inclement weather if accommodation were not provided. He would ask whether it was to be simply a musketry camp, or whether it was going to be a large base like Aldershot? Was there going to be sufficient accommodation to turn it into a large permanent camp? He asked these questions as a practical soldier, and had no desire to waste the time of the Committee. ["Hear, hear!"]

MR. BRODIRICK
said there was not the least intention of creating a second Aldershot on Salisbury Plain. The object was, in the first instance, to afford a manœuvring ground for the troops, some of whom would probably belong to the Militia or the Volunteers. They should provide a range with the object of carrying out that portion of the training. There was no intention of erecting a great number of permanent barracks on Salisbury Plain, as had been done at Aldershot.

§ MR. JOHN DILLON (Mayo, E.)
said he objected to the way in which the money had been spent in regard to Dublin Barracks. Unfortunately he was not able to enter into the matter in detail, as he had left the materials he had prepared at home, but the waste of money had been a scandal and disgrace to the War Office. He objected also to the expenditure on the military accommodations of St. Lucia, as being inconsistent with the policy of this country towards the United 1148 States of America. If the Government really desired to have peace with the United States, he argued, they would not select this moment to set up a great arsenal at the door of the United States. He assumed that this step was decided on last year at the time of the Venezuelan difficulty. This expenditure was in a different category to that proposed at the Cape, because they were all looking out now for war at the Cape.

§ SIR C. DILKE
said that a Commission had reported ten years ago in favour of the proposed works at St. Lucia as a naval basis in the West. Indies, and they had no conceivable connection with what had happened last year between this country mid America. [Ministerial cheers.] There was every reason to hope that if we were engaged in a great war the United States would be neutral and would feed us; and, therefore, this expenditure was in no way directed against that country. ["Hear, hear!"] In fact, if the United States did not exist, the expenditure at St. Lucia would still be necessary. ["Hear, hear!"] As regarded London, he thought the use of the word "fortifications" in connection with a scheme that involved an expenditure of only £120,000 was ridiculous; but if any large expenditure were contemplated in that direction it would be better to spend it on the Fleet, which must be the real defence of the country, and on field artillery.

§ MR. DALZIEL
said there were two points in regard to which he thought the Committee had a right to expect some information from the Under Secretary for War. In the first place, a representative Member of the House had declared they all knew there was going to be war in South Africa, and hence this proposed expenditure at Wynberg. That was a statement that should not be allowed to pass without notice from the Under Secretary for War. [Ministerial cries of ["Divide!"]

THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
Order, order! Any such discussion would be quite out of order. [Ministerial cheers.]

§ MR. DALZIEL
said he did not propose to discuss anything that did not properly arise from the schedule. He would ask the Under Secretary in the first place whether any communication had passed between the War Office or any other De- 1149 partment, and the Government of the Cape in regard to this expenditure; and secondly, upon what evidence had Wynberg been selected fur the expenditure, as there was a difference of opinion as to the wisdom of erecting the barracks at that place. He thought the Committee was entitled to information on those two points before they assented to the Bill.

§ MR. BRODRICK
said there was not the slightest objection to giving the information the hon. Gentleman asked for. The expenditure at Wynberg was due to the fact that for more than a year some troops had been under canvas at the Cape. It was extremely bad for the men to be so quartered, if they could be housed in barracks; and the canvas system was also expensive, for the, arms and accoutrements suffered. The Secretary for the Colonies announced some months ago that it was considered desirable by the Colonial Defence Committee that in connection with the additional coaling stations, the garrison should lie increased. That was a recommendation made quite apart from the state of affairs in South Africa, and was acceded to by the Government. Wynberg was selected because it was a healthy place for the troops.

§ MR. CHARLES BILL (Staffordshire, Leek)
, referring to the items for hospital and barracks accommodation at Sierra. Leone, desired to know whether a new hospital was to be built or the present one wits to be enlarged, and whether a new barracks was to be erected on another site, or there was to be an extension of the existing, barracks?

§ MR. BRODRICK
replied that the object of taking money for better hospital accommodation was because the present accommodation at Sierra, Leone wits not sufficient. As regarded the barracks, a final Report as to the site was being awaited before a decision was arrived at.

SCHEDULE.
MILITARY WORKS.
Heads. (1)	Estimated Cost. (2)
	£
1. Defence works	1,120,000
2. Barracks, including completion of large camps	2,989,000
3. Ranges, including accommodation for manœuvring and mobilization	1,149,000
4. Staff and contingencies	200,000
TOTAL	£5,458,000
Note.—The above works are partly new works and partly works which have been commenced and not completed under the Imperial Defence Act, 1888(51 & 52 Vict. C. 32), and the Barracks Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. C. 25).