ARMY ESTIMATES, 1899–1900.

HC Deb 21 April 1899 vol 70 cc223-315

Motion made, and Question proposed— That a sum, not exceeding £1,211,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Staff for Engineer Services, and Expenditure for Royal Engineer Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and Abroad (including Purchases), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1900.

CAPTAIN SINCLAIR (Forfarshire)

The point I wish to raise very briefly is in reference to Vote 10, and the money which has been spent under this head in regard to Wei-hai-Wei. It will be within the recollection of the Committee that it was decided that it was not possible to discuss that aspect of what is being done at Wei-hai-Wei under the Admiralty's Navy Vote. My purpose in rising now is to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he can give us any information as to what the War Office have done in regard to Wei-hai-Wei, and the money which has been spent there. You will find in the Appendix to Vote 10 an amount spent for engineers' surveys for Wei-hai-Wei. I want to ask the honourable Gentleman if he will give what information he can as to this expenditure. In the first place, I am sure it will be of interest to know what instructions were given to those officials who were sent out by the War Office to perform the services paid for under this Vote. In the second place. I should like to know how far the War Office is co-operating with the Admiralty in this matter. Beyond the ordinary difficulties which there must necessarily be in this matter, arising from the joint work of the Admiralty and the War Office with regard to a place of this kind, there is the further difficulty that we do not know how far they have been co-operating in matters of policy in regard to our position at Wei-hai-Wei. I should be much obliged to the honourable Gentleman if he would tell us what military operations are contemplated there. In a previous Vote money has been taken for the establishment of a Chinese regiment, officered by English officers, to be stationed at Wei-hai-Wei. Now, under this Vote the precise sum mentioned is £215 for surveys, and I have no doubt they are connected with what may be contemplated in regard to the further development of the defences of this new position. Perhaps the honourable Gentleman will tell us what instructions were given to these officers who made these surveys, and what part they are to play in the garrison and defence of this position, and whether the War Office contemplated adding to the expenditure for Wei-hai-Wei. It is very curious that the discussion on Wei-hai-Wei should have taken place under the Navy Estimates, but I may remind the Committee that the sum expended under the Navy Estimates is only £9,000, whereas the sum under Vote 1 of the Army Estimates amounts to £21,000, which is a considerably greater sum than that spent under the Navy Estimates. I should like to put these questions to the honourable Gentleman.

*THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS, Birmingham, S.)

The honourable Member for Forfarshire has been good enough to give me notice that he proposed to raise this point, and he asks me what instructions were given to the men whose pay is represented by this sum of £215 in regard to surveys at Wei-hai-Wei. No doubt the harbour of Wei-hai-Wei will require some protection, but it is quite impossible to say finally what that protection will consist of until we have had a complete survey of the place. The instructions to those who were sent out were simply that they should let us know after a full survey what the ins and outs of the place were. Until we do know exactly what we call "the lay of the land," it is obviously impossible to say what the protection of the place must be. The men are engaged there on a preliminary task, which, when they have fulfilled it, will enable Lord Lansdowne to say, in conjunction with the First Lord of the Admiralty, what the future of Wei-hai-Wei must be in reference in its defences.

MR. BUCHANAN (Aberdeenshire, E.)

I think we might get a little futher information from the Government. It will be within the recollection of the Committee that when the question was raised on the Navy Estimates there were two questions which were asked. One was with regard to making Wei-hai-Wei a secondary naval base, and the other was what the right honourable Gentleman meant by saying that it was also the design of the Government to fortify Wei-hai-Wei sufficiently. When we pressed the First Lord of the Admiralty on this point we were called to order, because it was ruled that it was a War Office question. The statement had been made by the First Lord of the Admiralty, as the representative of the Government, and we were anxious to obtain from him a complete statement as to the future intentions of the Government with regard to Wei-hai-Wei, and the purposes for which the money was to be expended. The First Lord of the Admiralty made a statement to us with regard to establishing a secondary naval base, into which he went at considerable detail. We should like to have that statement supplemented either by the representative of the War Office or by the First Lord of the Admiralty himself as to what he meant by having it fortified sufficiently, because I understand from the Papers which have been published in the China Blue Book, in which the instructions of those gentlemen whose salaries we now have before us are contained, that they will practically report upon any scheme of fortifications which may come under the consideration of the Government. I think we might have a statement from the First Lord of the Admiralty with regard to Wei-hai-Wei. Assuming, as I do, that with regard to the future of Wei-hai-Wei, military considerations and military works are to be absolutely subsidiary to naval considerations and naval works, and even though the disposition of the forces in Wei-hai-Wei is not absolutely and exclusively under the control of the Navy, we still want some assurance that any work done there will be subsidiary to the naval works. If the right honourable Gentleman will give us some further information upon these points we shall be fully in possession of the views of the Government.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

I think it is extremely unfair of the honourable Member opposite to ask what are the views and intentions of the Government in regard to Wei-hai-Wei, because it is quite clear that they do not know. These men, including a draughtsman and a foreman, have been sent out to Wei-hai-Wei in order to enable them to know. They have been sent out, as the honourable Gentleman the Financial Secretary has informed the House, to find out the lay of the land. That means that they are sent out, first of all, to see whether Wei-hai-Wei is very valuable as a station, and whether it is to be made a military station or not. I take it that there can be no other explanation to that point. The Financial Secretary has indicated clearly that, so far, he has not the slightest idea what the War Office, for its part, is going to do with Wei-hai-Wei. I think the First Lord of the Admiralty did give us a distinct notion as to what the Admiralty proposed to do, so far as the Member for York would allow them to do. But what we want to know is what the War Office is doing there at all. Are our soldiers or our sailors there now to defend it?

THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN, St. George's, Hanover Square)

There are no soldiers there.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

It does seem to me that when this matter was primarily taken in hand, as it is a strategical question, a Committee should have instructed the War Office upon the question. It is quite clear that the Financial Secretary has had no instructions, but he is waiting for the report of these two men. I have one other question to ask in regard to this Vote, and that is with regard to the Scilly Isles. They constitute a most important naval station, very much more important than Wei-hai-Wei. We have an item here for the survey of this place for the erection of ports in the Scilly Isles, which I deprecate very strongly. I think the War Office is entirely out of place in the Scilly Isles. To summarise what I have said, I should like the Financial Secretary for War to tell us what he proposes to do there, and I should like to ask him what mischief he is up to in the Scilly Isles, and whether he is contemplating the erection of any fortifications in those islands, and, if so, whether he will not reconsider his position and repent of his misdeeds?

MR.COURTENAY WARNER (Stafford, Lichfield)

I want to remind the Committee that when these land works were discussed, the noble Lord the Member for York said Wei-hai-Wei would want one or two forts, and now we have got nothing about those forts. These two people have gone out to survey, and they must have orders as to what sort of fortifications they are to survey for. They must have some sort of idea given them, and I should like the First Lord of the Admiralty, as representing the Committee of Defence, to give us some information on this point. According to the Financial Secretary's statement, it is clear that the Committee of Defence have got some distiuct ideas as to what the Army was to do and what the Navy is to do. I should like to ask if it is the opinion of the Committee of Defence that it is necessary to have two separate establishments there, because that is what many of us think is an extravagant system. We think that there should be no Army staff there, and what soldiers there are there should be under the command of the Admiralty.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY

The question of Wei-hai-Wei has been considered and is being considered, I may say, at this moment by the Cabinet Committee of Defence of the Admiralty. Both the Army proposals and the Navy proposals have been before that Committee, and it is that Committee which is at present investigating the subject. There have been very full reports sent home from Wei-hai-Wei by Colonel Lewis, who was sent out to report on the question of the defences of that place. Colonel Lewis acted together with the naval authorities there. There was perfect community of action between them, and he sent home a very full and able report with reference to the defences; and these two gentlemen, whose salaries are now in the Army Estimates, are, if I may say so, simply filling up the details of the survey, the general features of which have been communicated to the Government, and are in the hands of the Government, and are being considered at the present moment. We have substantially in our possession the means of forming a judgment on the necessary fortifications of Wei-hai-Wei. That is a subject which is now being considered by the Defence Committee of the Cabinet, who are at present engaged on the question of what ought to be the size of the garrison to be sent to the island, and how it ought to be composed. There is no uncertainty in the views of the Government as regards our ultimate aim. Of course, we must decide the details according to such information as we are able to collect. The general idea is this—that Wei-hai-Wei is to be a secondary naval base, and that it is to be fortified so far as will put it into a position to enable it to defend itself, but not to fortify it to that point which will make it a rallying place at which ships may take refuge. The fortifications will be of a comparatively simple kind. We have already the general idea as to the number of guns and where they are to be placed, but we are unable at present to commit ourselves to any final propositions. I am sure the House would not wish to hurry us into any decision in regard to this question. We shall act on the fullest possible information. My honourable Friend behind me is not quite correct when he says we do not know what we are doing.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

I meant the War Office.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY

In this matter we are one. I make myself responsible for all that has been done both by the War Office and by the Admiralty, as no doubt my noble Friend Lord Lansdowne is likewise prepared to be responsible for the joint action of the War Office and the Admiralty. It is astonishing how difficult it is to persuade the House of Commons that this community of action exists. I pledge myself to this, that Lord Lansdowne and I are in constant communication on all matters where the Army and Navy are jointly concerned. I hope that I have satisfied my honourable Friend and other honourable Members on this matter. We have not acted in the dark; but, on the other hand, we have not got possession of sufficient details as would justify us in giving any final proposals with regard to the expenditure which will be incurred.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs)

I think the position taken up by the right honourable Gentleman is perfectly intelligible and perfectly proper. The main grounds of the proposal are quite determined, but the Government still lack the detail necessary to complete the scheme. But, at the same time, it seems to me that the right honourable Gentleman must have a little mercy on the House of Commons, because we are engaged in the agreeable task of voting the money for these purposes, and we are therefore naturally anxious to know as much as possible about the intentions of the Government, and when we endeavoured to get this information on the Navy Estimates we were told it was out of order to speak on anything affecting the Army alone. The Chinese regiment will, I presume, be quartered at Wei-Hai-Wei. I should like to know a little more about that Chinese regiment. When we passed the Vote for this regiment I understood that it was to be quartered at Wei-hai-Wei. Is that regiment to be used for manning the fortifications of Wei-hai-Wei, or will it be a mobile regiment to be used for other military purposes? I do not think that has been made quite clear. There are a good many people who think that if this is to be a secondary naval base the defence of it would be better left in the hands of the Navy itself. I confess to sharing that view to a very large extent, not only in this case, but in others. I should like to know whether the Chinese regiment is to be employed in manning the fortifications?

THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY

That is the idea; it will be utilised in that way to a certain extent. The question of the composition of the garrison is now engaging our special attention, and the number of native levies to be associated with a certain number of British troops is just one of the questions on which we are now endeavouring to arrive at a decision. There is no doubt that a certain portion of the regiment would be employed for the defence of Wei-hai-Wei.

MR. BUCHANAN

Will the right honourable Gentleman answer the other question? He stated that there would be a certain amount of money asked for for the erection of works in Wei-hai-Wei under the New Barracks Loans Bill. Will he say when the Naval Works Bill is likely to be introduced?

*MR. POWELL WILLIAMS

I cannot answer the last question, but the honourable Member is right in supposing that the charge for the barracks will be on the Barracks Loans Bill. With regard to the question of the honourable Member for King's Lynn in reference to the Scilly Isles, I am not aware that there is any charge with regard to those islands in this Vote. He is quite right in saying that the works there are proceeding, but they are being done under the Military Works Act.

LORD C. BERESFORD (York)

I should like to ask my right honourable Friend how long he thinks the survey will take, and if, when the result of that survey is sent home to the Committee of Defence, the works at Wei-hai-Wei would at once be put in hand. When I was out there the German Admiral made a very curious remark to me. He said— You English are the most extraordinary people. Three ports have been taken from China. One is Port Arthur, taken by the Russians; another Kiao-chau, taken by the Germans, and the third Wei-hai-Wei, taken by the British. The Russians are working with very great activity to fortify their fort, the Germans are working with great industry in making a parade ground, and you are employed with great industry in making a cricket ground. I hope my right honourable Friend will be able to tell the Committee that directly the survey is fully reported on by the two Services this port will be put in the position promised, that of a secondary naval base.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY

If we do less and proceed more leisurely at Wei-hai-Wei than the Russians and the Germans respectively at Port Arthur and Kiao-chau, it is that to the Russians Port Arthur is their Hong Kong, as Kiao-chau is the Hong Kong of the Germans. Wei-hai-Wei is not our principal base. It is not a base on which we intend to rely for the protection of our Fleet; it is accessory, as I have endeavoured to point out, and therefore there is not the same cause for any feverish haste in fortifying Wei-hai-Wei. On the other hand, I may say we need not wait for the details filling up the general survey already in our possession. We have, I think, before us almost sufficient information in the main to enable us to arrive at a decision with reference to the fortifications and barracks that may be necessary. No further delay will occur, and I think, without having to take any further surveys, we shall soon be able, upon the information that will be in our hands, to begin the fortifications and other necessary works in the Navy Estimates as well as those under the Army Barracks Bill. I hope that my noble Friend will be satisfied with my answer.

LORD C. BERESFORD

We shall not have to wait for next year's Estimates?

THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY

No, Sir, only till the Army Barracks Bill is introduced this year.

MR. PIRIE (Aberdeen, N.)

I desire to know with reference to the survey which was promised last year as to the works on the Clyde, whether any sum will be voted for that purpose. The matter was brought before the attention of the War Office over twelve months ago, and it was then said it was undesirable to make a statement upon the question. I should like to know what has been done in the matter.

*MR. POWELL WILLIAMS

The question of the defence of the English ports is one which is under the consideration of those military and naval experts who are considering the whole question of the defence of our mercantile ports with a view to selecting those cases which they consider to be the most urgent. I understand that in the opinion of these military and naval experts several cases other than the one which the honourable Member mentions are considered to be more urgent and must have precedence. It is impossible to do them all at once, and we must take them in some order. I think the honourable Member will agree that those which are most urgent ought to be dealt with at once, and those which are less urgent ought to be postponed, Therefore, there is no provision for the Clyde works in this year's Estimate, and the reason is because in the opinion of those responsible it is not so urgent as other cases which are put forward.

Motion made, and Question proposed— That Item D (Incidental Expenses of the War Department, Lands, and Property), be reduced by £100, in respect of the Expenses of 'Sewage Farm, Aldershot.'"—(Mr. Jeffreys.)

MR. JEFFREYS (Hants, N.)

I now propose to move the reduction of £100 of the sum of £13,200 put down for the sewage farm at Aldershot. I do not see any details about the work, and I shall ask the Financial Secretary if he will explain how much has been spent upon this sewage farm. What I want to call the attention of the Committee to is, that under the present management of the sewage farm—and I do not deny that the officer in charge manages it very well indeed—it is proposed that the milk produced on this farm should be supplied to the soldiers at Aldershot. I protest against that, and the people at Aldershot protest as well, because when we hear of so many diseases being conveyed through milk I think that it is necessary that the milk supply should be absolutely pure. Now, first of all, I understand that this farm was let, but it was carried on so badly that the War Office determined to take it into their own hands. It is now being carried on under the superintendence of the War Office and the military authorities at Aldershot, and they have a distinguished colonel at the head of this sewage farm, and no doubt this gentleman carries on the farm very well indeed. Now, the farm is carried on entirely as a sewage farm, and I do not think it is the sort of place which should be turned into cultivated land. Now, from the crops grown on that farm cows are kept, and milk is supplied to the troops. I should just like to mention to the Committee what I have just heard. I have learned that the medical officer of health at Aldershot reported against the dairy being registered there two years ago, on the ground that the sewage farm was impregnated with germs of disease. That is to say, the authorities would not allow this filth to be sold to the civilians, but notwithstanding that the sale of this milk was stopped two years ago, when my right honourable Friend was the Under Secretary of State for War, it is now proposed to commence this sale again. I have here the District Orders, and they say— On and after 25th April, the Camp Farm will distribute pure milk at 3d. per quart to mosses, officers' quarters, etc. Now, I contend that what is not good enough for civilians is not good enough for the troops quartered at Aldershot, and I am very much impressed with this, because here are the instructions for the guidance of dairymen and cowkeepers with the view to the prevention of infectious diseases. It says— Typhoid fever, scarlet fever, and diphtheria may have their origin in dairies, and be produced in the following ways. One of the paragraphs (No. 4) lays down— Cows suffering from disease, or lying about on sewage farms. They particularly mention the fact that a sewage farm is an unhealthy place for cows to be in. I should also like to tell the Financial Secretary that there was a public meeting of the Aldershot, Farnborough, and District Dairymen's and Cowkeepers' Association held on Wednesday, 22nd March 1899, at the Wellington Hotel, Aldershot, to protest against the establishment of the dairy by the War Office on the Government sewage farm at Aldershot for the supply of milk to the military hospitals, prison, troops, etc., at that station. At that meeting it was proposed, seconded, and carried unanimously— That this meeting has learned with the gravest concern of the intention of the War office to open a dairy on the Government sewage farm at Aldershot. There is a great feeling about this question in the country as to pure milk, and it is not a matter to be easily slurred over, because there is no doubt that a great many diseases arise from milk. and we in the country are most particular, not only with regard to the dairy, but with regard to the pasture on which the cows feed, and it is absurd to say that you can get pure milk from cows which are kept upon a sewage farm. I admit that the military authorities ought to do the best they can to make the farm pay, but yet I think they might do it in a more legitimate way than keeping a dairy upon it. We all know that land saturated with sewage produces enormous crops, and this might be used for feeding purposes. I do not think, however, that the crops from the sewage farm ought to feed the cows which produce the milk. I should not do it on my own farms, and I do not think anyone in this House would like to drink the milk which comes from that farm. I would impress upon the Financial Secretary that it is very important that soldiers should not be treated in this way. Surely a great country like this, which spends so many millions on the Army, can afford to lose a very small amount upon a farm. It does seem a reasonable thing that this should be done, because it has been done before by the War Office, and the sale of the milk from this contaminated farm should be stopped.

DR. FARQUHARSON (Aberdeenshire, W.)

I think it has been held by sanitary authorities that the disinfecting power of land and soil is so great that it destroys the germs of disease. In the neighbourhood of large towns, as this farm may be, it is possible to so saturate the ground with sewage that it may not be altogether free from disease. I think it is a strong order for the War Office to sanction the starting of this dairy farm in opposition to the wishes of the people of the district. I would not attach so much importance to the opinion of the inhabitants themselves, because we know the whole question of the diseases caused by bacilli is very much in the air just now, and we may have to consider this question in accordance with the most recent developments of sanitary science. But when I hear the medical officer of health, whom we know is an able man, has protested against this place, the position is a very different one, and I think it is a strong order that the military authorities should start dairies on this land in defiance of the sanitary authority. What I consider the military authorities ought to do is to send an expert from the Local Government Board. We have here the best experts in the world, and it would be a good thing for the War Office to have an opinion of that kind from some medical officer of high and undoubted sanitary experience and authority, who should be sent out to report upon this farm.

MAJOR RASCH (Essex, S.E.)

I should like, in a few words, to support my honourable Friend the Member for North Hants in the very reasonable request he makes from the Financial Secretary. The last Report on this matter was in 1897, and the authorities then stated that diseases were on the increase, particularly in regard to scarlet fever. This was denied by the representative of the War Office in this House. I cannot help thinking that it is not proper and is not an economical matter to supply a camp of soldiers with milk from this sewage farm, because the health of our soldiers is of the greatest importance. I hope that, as the experiment has been tried before and failed, the War Office will pay some attention to the complaint of my honourable Friend.

*GENERAL RUSSELL (Cheltenham)

In my opinion this farm would be much better employed if it was devoted to the production of forage rather than a dairy farm. As a large farmer I say that, in my opinion, it is a great mistake to sell milk coming from the sewage farm.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY (Shropshire, Newport)

I maintain that we ought to treat our soldiers just the same as we should treat ourselves in this matter. I will undertake to say that there is not a single Member of this House who, upon any consideration, would allow a single pint of milk from a sewage farm to enter his own house. I know something of sewage farms in connection with Birmingham and Wolverhampton, and all I say is that I would as soon drink rank poison as the milk which comes from those farms. I think it is very hard lines that the soldier should be supplied with this milk.

*MR. POWELL WILLIAMS

As the case of Birmingham has been referred to, perhaps I may be allowed to say that there is in that city on the sewage farm a very considerable dairy, and a very large amount of milk coming from that dairy is supplied to the residents in Birmingham, who enjoy the felicity of being almost the most healthy population in the kingdom.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY

Does the honourable Gentleman use that milk himself?

*MR. POWELL WILLIAMS

Yes, I do.

AN HONOURABLE MEMBER

Boiled?

*MR. POWELL WILLIAMS

There are two points which the Committee should bear in mind. In the first place, the £1,900 which we take with this year's Estimate is to complete a larger sum for the purpose of the subsoil drainage of the Aldershot farm, which the House assented to two years ago. I think my honourable Friend the Member for Basingstoke has forgotten that, in answer to a Question which he put to me on the subject the other day, I stated, on behalf of Lord Lansdowne, that, bowing to the feeling that existed in some quarters of the House as to the desirability of not using milk from this farm for the purpose of supplying the troops, he would cause a special expert inquiry to be made into the matter, and I promised, in his behalf, that we should be absolutely guided by the result of that inquiry. But if I am called upon to defend what has been hitherto done, then I have to say that anything that has been done upon this question has been done in pursuance of the opinion of the Army Sanitary Committee, which, as my honourable Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire is aware, consists of gentlemen who are perfectly qualified to form an opinion upon a matter of this kind. Something has been said about the former tenant and the supply having been stopped on the farm. I think that was in 1896, but the reason for that action was that the farm was grossly mismanaged and allowed to get into a very bad state, and the milk supplied from the farm was necessarily affected. Subsequently the farm was taken over by the War Office authorities, and the Army Sanitary Committee have since that time expressed their opinion on the subject in these words— That the supply of milk from this farm and dairy produce may properly be sold to the troops. An eminent professor from the Army Medical School has also reported in the following words— That the dairy on the farm is in perfect sanitary condition, that the cows are clean and healthy, and that there is an abundant supply of pure water. Then the Report goes on to say— I should not have the smallest hesitation myself in using the milk from this farm, and I consider the consumers are fortunate in being able to obtain such a good supply of milk. It was under those conditions that the medical officer at Aldershot allowed this milk to be supplied to the troops. What my honourable Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire said is perfectly true, because medical opinion upon this question is constantly changing. However, looking to the circumstances of this farm, if, after further inquiry, the Secretary of State finds that this farm ought not to be used as a milk producing farm, then the supply of milk will be stopped and the conditions changed.

Mr. JEFFREYS

I should like to ask my honourable Friend a further question upon this point. In the District Orders issued this month it states that the manager of the Camp Farm is prepared to deliver supplies of milk to the troops after the 25th April. Now I should like to ask if the honourable Gentleman will take care that this milk is not supplied until after the promised inquiry has taken place. If the milk is to be supplied next Monday, and the Secretary of State is going to have this inquiry, which may take a long time, then this regiment may be half-poisoned in the meantime. It is all very well for the honourable Gentleman to mention the case of the sewage farm at Birmingham, but he must remember that at Aldershot is a totally different soil. This is a comparatively small farm, and the district around it has grown to enormous dimensions, so much so that the authorities have tried to buy another farm in order to effectively dispose of their sewage. This farm is too small for the amount of sewage which comes upon it, and consequently it is perfectly saturated. All I say is that it is worth while taking great care that the chances of contamination shall not come from such a small matter as this.

DR. FARQUHARSON

Perhaps my honourable Friend will also inform the House whether the medical officer has given any opinion upon it. Can he inform us what is the opinion of the principal medical officer?

*MR. POWELL WILLIAMS

The medical officer at Aldershot has reported in favour of this supply. I will undertake to say that nothing shall be done until we have heard the result of the inquiry, and until the Secretary of State is satisfied.

MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)

There is another way to look at this matter, and it is from a civilian point of view. We have been trying to do all we can to make the Army popular, and if it is reported amongst the soldiers' friends and relations that the troops are given milk which is not good, and which comes from an unsatisfactory source, we cannot hope to popularise the Army. I would suggest that some of the milk should be sent up to the Secretary of State for his own use.

MR. PIRIE

I would suggest that the inquiry should be a thoroughly impartial one, because we have two opinions which are both different. The civilian medical officer represents the ratepayers, and the military medical officer represents the War Office; therefore it is important that the inquiry should be a thoroughly impartial one, and should be conducted by a man whose opinion will deserve every confidence.

*MR. WEIR

May I ask upon what conditions the previous tenant held the farm?

MR. SEELY (Lincoln)

I think the War Office would be much wiser if they did not get the milk from a sewage farm at Aldershot at all. There is plenty of milk to be got from farms which are not sewage farms, and nobody can ever make me believe that milk from sewages farms is free from disease germs. Anyone who has any knowledge of farming knows that dairy farming in particular requires careful personal supervision, and economically it is most unwise for a public body to start dairy farming. It would be better to give up providing this milk, and not run what is an obvious risk both to the troops and to the children of the married men, for there is no necessity to have this milk supply at all. I hope the Financial Secretary to the War Office will reconsider the whole question, and decide to give up the supply altogether. He says he drinks milk from a sewage farm at Birmingham, but no doubt it has been boiled, and that is a necessary precaution. It would be far better to grow forage on the farm.

MR. COURTENAY WARNER

I believe the milk from this farm is being sold at the present time. I have known this farm for about 20 years, although I have not seen it for the last year or two. For about 15 years I have been within smelling distance of it, and I can assure the House that it smells at a considerable distance. I should think that any milk from that farm, whether produced there or not, would not be a fit beverage for children.

*MR. WEIR

I understand that this farm has been in operation for about 20 years, and you are now asking for £13,500 for working expenses. I understand that the revenue from this farm is about £750 a year, but we have no details as to how much of this £13,500 is required to carry on. the sewage farm at Aldershot. I think the War Office should give some detailed account of this expenditure; no body of shareholders in a public company would allow an account of this kind to pass unnoticed. I think the War Office should conduct this work on business lines, and give us some explanation of the details.

MAJOR RASCH

I do not know whether the War Office is going to stop the sale of this milk or not in the meantime, but I suggest that the War Office should drink this milk themselves if they are not going to stop the supply. If the War Office would only use it themselves, it might lead to greater economy.

MR. JEFFREYS

If my honourable Friend will say that until after the, inquiry he will not allow this milk to be supplied, then I beg to withdraw my Amendment.

*MR.POWELL WILLIAMS

I will undertake that the issue of the milk shall not be extended until after the inquiry which Lord Lansdowne is preparing to institute.

MR. JEFFREYS

The General Order says that it is to be supplied on and after the 25th April. If the honourable Gentleman will undertake to say that no general delivery of the milk to the troops shall take place pending this inquiry I will withdraw my Amendment.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

I usually assume a habit of supporting the War Office, but I must admit that I think there is a great deal of force in the contention that dairy produce is not the only thing for which this farm could be used. It could be used for forage, and it would be well to avert the mere suspicion of anything being sold which is prejudicial to the health of the troops or of the community. Even supposing that a small preponderance of experts could be found to say that there is no danger, it would still be better to avoid suspicion in such a matter. I hope that the Financial Secretary will be able to say that unless the expert opinion which Lord Lansdowne receives is overwhelmingly strong in the opposite direction, and against the suggestion of danger, the farm would not be used for dairy purposes. It will put an end to the semblance of fear if he will not prosecute the plan of using the farm for dairy purposes.

COLONEL WELBY (Taunton)

It is very easy to remedy this state of things. These cows can be removed and put on other forms—for there are plenty of pasture grounds—or else they could be sold. I do think that it is rather unfortunate that the War Office have placed themselves in the position of supplying this milk, and I think they ought to take care that no milk from this sewage farm is supplied to the soldiers. The interests of recruiting and the health of the men themselves is what the Committee should consider.

*MR. POWELL WILLIAMS

I quite recognise that there are questions con- nected with this subject other than mere economic considerations. With regard to what has been said by the right honourable Gentleman opposite as to the desirability of doing nothing which is open to suspicion, I have not the slightest objection to meet his appeal. An expert will be called in, and if his report casts any suspicion or doubt upon this milk supply; if it traverses the reports of the other experts upon whose advice it is now controlled, and by which the Secretary of State is now guided, the production of milk will be abandoned, and the farm will be put to other uses. At the present time the Secretary of State is in this position: he is advised by those whose business it is to acquaint themselves with these matters that there is no danger whatever. There are a large number of farms of a similar character throughout the United Kingdom producing milk, and no injury to health has resulted. But still, if the experts whom the Secretary of State consults tells him that the supply is not absolutely safe, the Committee may rest assured that the system will be abandoned.

COLONEL. KENYON-SLANEY

And until the report is received, the supply will be abandoned?

MR. POWELL WILLIAMS

No.

SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD (Somerset, Wellington)

Unless the Government will give an undertaking that the milk is not to be sold until the report has been received, I think we should press this Amendment.

*MR. WEIR

Is there a Motion before the Committee?

MR. JEFFREYS

I moved the reduction by —100.

THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS

I beg the honourable Member's pardon, but he did not move.

MR. JEFFREYS

I moved at the commencement of my remarks.

THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS

The honourable Member rose to move, but he did not do so.

MR. JEFFREYS

Then I will undertake not to move if the honourable Gentleman will promise not to supply this milk until the inquiry has been held. If this undertaking is not given I shall persist in moving the reduction.

THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford)

Although I am not responsible for what has taken place, I do appeal to my honourable Friend to consider whether it is necessary to divide the Committee after the very distinct promise which has been given by the Financial Secretary.

MR. JEFFREYS

What promise?

MR. BRODRICK

What is complained of by the Member for Basingstoke is that a new departure is to be initiated on Monday next, when the issue of this milk to a certain number of regimental canteens will take place. My honourable Friend has undertaken that no new departure shall take place; but what he is asked to promise is that, until an investigation has been made, and in spite of what has been done hitherto, the milk shall not be sold anywhere. That means that it must be destroyed, and that is rather a strong order. The milk must be disposed of somewhere, and it will be unreasonable to ask the Secretary of State not to allow it. I think my honourable Friend has gone as far as he can be asked to go in saying that there shall be no extension whatever of the present arrangements; that the system shall be overhauled; and that if any shadow of doubt is thrown on the purity of the milk, its supply will be stopped altogether.

MR. JEFFREYS

After this very strong expression of opinion on both sides of the House, I hope the War Office will not persevere in this course. Of course, the milk must be disposed of in some way, and if the Order relating to Monday next is to be cancelled, I will withdraw my Amendment.

DR. FARQUHARSON

I would suggest that, if the milk could not be withdrawn altogether, the War Office shall give an undertaking that it shall not be issued unless it is sterilised or boiled.

MR. ELLIOT (Durham)

I venture to think that to persist in this Amendment is a very doubtful step in- deed to take. Having pointed out the danger of the circumstances that exist to the Government themselves, they have stated that the matter is being inquired into, and that they will abide by the inquiry. Therefore I think that under the circumstances we should be doing a very unwise thing in not leaving the full responsibility for effective action with those upon whom the responsibility rests for the moment.

MR. SEELY

I think the Financial Secretary has not quite realised what the issue is. There can be no objection to private persons buying this milk if they choose to do so. But it is a different thing to issue it to the troops, who cannot refuse to drink it and cannot ask for other milk.

*MR. POWELL WILLIAMS

My honourable Friend is under a misapprehension. The milk is not issued to the troops, but to the canteens, and they can refuse it at any moment.

MR. SEELY

It. stated in the Order that it was to be issued to the troops. I think the Government would be far wiser in giving up the business altogether. I think the War Office might show rather more sense in this matter than they generally do, and not sell milk to the troops from a sewage farm. Perhaps enough has been said now to make it unnecessary to press it to a Division.

MR. PIRIE

It is not right to say that the canteens are free agents in this matter. How could they make a change when they know that the commanding officer is in favour of this milk? I should like a promise that this inquiry will be made within a certain time. I desire to emphasise the statement that the milk, if sold to the public, should be sterilised or boiled before it leaves the sewage farm. I do not think that there will be any necessity to go to a Division.

*MR. POWELL WILLIAMS

It has been said that I do not realise the importance of this question. That honourable Gentlemen do not like the idea of milk coming from a sewage farm I have at this particular moment got very much in my mind. I will promise that this inquiry to be instituted by the Secretary of State shall take place next week.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

Motion made, and Question put— That Item D be reduced by £50, in respect of the Expenses of Sewage Farm, Aldershot.'"—(Mr. Weir.)

*MR. WEIR

I beg to move the reduction as a protest against this system of lumping these accounts together. There is a sum of £750 derived from two sewage farms, one at Aldershot, and one at Sandhurst. I asked earlier in the evening upon what conditions this sewage farm at Aldershot was let, and I received no answer.

Amendment negatived.

Vote agreed to.

MR. BUCHANAN

There is an item here with regard to Piershill Barracks to which I desire to call attention. This also raises the question of a sewage farm, but it raises it in a different way, and it does not belong to the War Office, but to the City Corporation of Edinburgh. During the past few years there has been a great deal of unhealthiness in these barracks, which are cavalry barracks, close to Edinburgh, and it is a peculiarity of the disease and sickness that generally occurs there that it generally takes one form. Almost invariably those who suffer from sickness are those who are put to live in one side of the barracks, and that side of the barracks is the side nearest to the Edinburgh sewage farm. I understand, too, that the drainage is defective, and between the two the officers and men are being gradually poisoned, or at any rate, their health is being very seriously injured. I do not know what reply my honourable Friend is going to make to me, and I know that the rate of mortality there has not been so great as in other institutions. If he is going to take that line of argument, I may point out that, as a matter of fact, a large number of both officers and men who have suffered from blood poisoning in these barracks have been removed and put into private hospitals or in the Royal Infirmary, and there were two cases of soldiers suffering from lead poisoning in which death ensued. There has been a considerable number of cases in which the soldiers have been put upon the sick list, and have seriously suffered in consequence. More than that, I am informed by information which comes from the Edinburgh authorities that in many cases the men who have lived for a long period of time in these barracks have found their general health very much debilitated, and consequently their injuries heal very slowly. I think it is a case in which the War Office ought to take serious steps to put these barracks in a proper state of sanitary repair. If it is found to be the fault of the sewage farm they should put pressure upon the authorities in Edinburgh to get better control over their sewage farm. If, on the other hand, there is found to be good grounds for thinking that the defects are irremediable, then the Government should take steps for the construction of new barracks, or the removal of the regiment to some more sanitary quarters.

*GENERAL RUSSELL

I know of an instance within my own personal knowledge of a friend of mine who suffered from blood poisoning due to the insanitary condition of these barracks. I considered it such a bad case that I wrote direct to Lord Lansdowne, who, with his usual courtesy, ordered an inquiry to be made and sent me a report, which declared that the barracks were in a perfectly sanitary condition. I confess that I attached very little value to the report, but I went down myself to these barracks, and stayed in them. I also consulted some of the officers on the subject. It appears to me, as far as I have been able to ascertain, that the insanitary condition of the barracks is due to the sewage farm in the immediate neighbourhood. They told me that, although the drainage was apparently all right, bad smells come in from the north-west—they are horrible smells—and cause an enormous amount of sickness and general debility. In point of fact, as the honourable Member opposite has said, for some reason or other the barracks are insanitary, and I hope the Financial Secretary will give us some assurance that the matter will be very carefully inquired into, and, whatever the cause is, that it, will be removed.

DR. FARQUHARSON

I am myself in possession of private information from reliable sources in Edinburgh which lead me to absolutely confirm everything which has been said by my honourable and gallant Friend, and if he had not brought this matter before the House, I should have felt it my duty to have done so. The honourable Member has very properly pointed out that you cannot assess the damage to health by the mortality, and what we want to get at is the general condition of the health of the troops, for there is no doubt that in these barracks both the health of officers and men have suffered very materially. The officers complain that when sleeping in their rooms with the windows open they suffer from the sewage gas, for they are so exposed. What we want is a thorough, searching inquiry to be made immediately by an independent medical expert—we happen to have some of the best sanitarians in the country in Edinburgh—or an expert could be sent down from London. There is a certain amount of mystery, connected with the prevailing illness amongst the soldiers in these barracks, and there is deterioration gradually going on, and it is not right that any troops should be subjected to conditions which they are not subjected to in any other part of the country.

*COLONEL, BLUNDELL (Lancs., Ince)

I recollect that some time ago the water was considered to be very bad at the Piershill Barracks, and affected the cavalry horses. At least, that was believed to be the cause when I was stationed at, Edinburgh.

COLONEL WELBY

Although I am not prepared with any particulars, as one who has been quartered at Piershill, I can speak from experience of the general unhealthiness of those barracks. The sewage farm is a very large one, for I remember passing it on my way to the rifle range. The smells from the sewage farm are very objectionable, and the officers' quarters in particular are bad and unhealthy. In addition to this the barracks are very old-fashioned and insanitary themselves. The stables are low, and the men's rooms are over the stables. The whole space of the barracks is too small for the requirements of the modern cavalry regiment. The only jumping-place at these barracks had to be discontinued because a fatal accident happened there. What I would urge is that the War Office should have a full inquiry not only into the sanitary condition of the barracks, but also to see whether it would not be better to sell the site, pull these barracks down, and build new barracks on a more healthy site, where the proper space and all modern improvements for a modern cavalry regiment could be provided. I do not think that it would be at all an unjust favour to Scotland that a proper cavalry barracks should be built on another site. There is one other question with reference to hot water baths. There is a large item down in this Vote for this purpose, and I want to know what barracks these are going to be put into. I should also like to know whether the Financial Secretary is aware that some of the hot water baths were set up and the apparatus put in, not with public money, but with money borrowed, and which really belongs to the soldiers. I wish to ask whether the War Office will make careful inquiry into this matter, and whether it is intended to repay the whole of these loans for baths out of this £25,000.

Put and negatived.

Original Question again proposed.

Motion made, and Question proposed— That Item N (Barracks), be reduced by £100, in respect of the Piershill Barracks."—(Mr. Pirie.)

MR. PIRIE

This matter of the Piershill Barracks was brought before the House of Commons last year, owing to an accident in the stables. It was my intention to bring up the subject which has been raised by the honourable and gallant Member who has just spoken, namely, the utterly inadequate expenditure on barrack accommodation in Scotland. Now we have received additional evidence from different quarters as to the insanitary state of these barracks. If the Piershill Barracks were situated in England or Ireland, attention would have been given to them long ago, and they would have been removed from the present site, and it would not have been necessary to make these complaints. The figures with regard to the question of barrack accommodation in the three countries will furnish sufficient reason why these complaints come forward as regards Scotland. From 1892 to 1897 the expenditure on barrack accommodation in the three countries respectively, in round numbers was: England, £2,300,000; Ireland, £600,000, and Scotland, only £35,000. These figures are for a period of five years, but the average per annum for the three countries was: England, £460,000; Ireland, £116,000, and in Scotland, a miserable £7,000. I quite allow that we have comparatively an insignificant garrison as compared with the garrison kept in England and in Ireland, but no one can deny that, even if you take proportionate figures, the expenditure in Scotland ought to be very much higher. The honourable and gallant Member made a very good suggestion that we in Scotland were quite entitled to have another battalion. It is a very desirable suggestion, and I think more attention might have been paid to it. I think the state of Piershill Barracks should have received more consideration. Recruiting in Scotland is falling off, and is it to be wondered at when you have this disgraceful neglect of the troops stationed in Scotland? The amount put down for repairs at the Piershill Barracks is a miserable £3,000, while you are building palaces in London and in Ireland for the accommodation of your soldiers. I see that there is no less than £42,000 put down for the accommodation of the Guards in London, at Gosport £17,000, and in Ireland accommodation is being provided for 300 men at a cost of £78,000. That item alone is more than the average amount allowed for the whole garrison of Scotland for the last seven years. The Financial Secretary, in alluding to the defence works on the Clyde, gave as his reason that the authorities did not think they were so urgent as those which had been set down. That is the same old story. Every place in England and Ireland are more important than Scotland, and unless Scottish Members combine and bring up these matters before the House, we shall never get the justice which we ought to have. It is posi- tively disgraceful, and I am glad that my honourable Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire has brought up this matter, and I hope the Scottish people will read these figures, and not rest satisfied until justice has been done to our country. For 1898 and 1899 the expenditure on barrack accommodation in England was £560,000; in Ireland, with practically the same population as in Scotland, it was £285,000; and in Scotland it is a miserable £35,000. This state of affairs cannot go on. No wonder the House of Commons is often surprised at the Scottish Members not being satisfied with the present system of Government in Scotland, and demanding Home Rule. These are the sort of things that make us demand Home Rule in Scotland, because we do not receive proper attention. I do not wish to see a very much larger garrison in Scotland, but I do wish to the garrison there lodged in a proper and a sanitary way. You draw a large proportion of your troops from Scotland, and you attempt to draw them from all sections of the population. Now, if you wish to keep up the strength of these regiments in Scotland, and I do sincerely trust that more attention will be paid to this question in the future. In answer to a question upon this subject, it was said that it was necessary for their proper training that the troops should be sent to the south, because there was no accommodation for the training of large masses of troops in Scotland. I think the honourable and gallant Member for Cheltenham will agree with me that this is not so, and there is no reason why our troops should be sent to undergo their training in England when there are ample facilities in their own country. As I consider that this matter is important, I shall move this reduction on the special question of the Piershill Barracks owing to the negligence which has been displayed in regard to these barracks, and I beg to move the reduction of this Vote by £100. I wish to ask the Financial Secretary two questions. With regard to the proposed convalescent homes for soldiers, I wish to know where the sites are to be. I have heard that one is to be at Brighton, and I want to know what arrangements have been made in regard to it. I wish also to draw attention to the same fault that can be found with regard to the inadequate accommodation of the garrison at Stirling, and in a certain degree to a small garrison at Aberdeen in my own constituency. We have recently received the Gordon Highlanders, and there is no reason why there should not be accommodation made there for at least half the battalion. I hope that satisfactory answers will be given to these questions.

MR. ELLIOT

I desire to know how it happens that such an important county as Durham is entirely without barracks at all.

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS

That question cannot be raised now. because a reduction has been moved in reference to the Piershill Barracks.

*MR. POWELL WILLIAMS

On the question of the Piershill Barracks, and the point which has been raised with regard to the sewage farm, I may say that I shall be very glad to make inquiries into the matter, and I shall raise the question as to whether a site of that kind is, after all, desirable to maintain as a place for the housing of troops. The particular charge upon this Estimate is one for £2,600, which is to be expended in reflooring these barracks, and putting the woodwork into proper order. At the present time the barracks are occupied to nothing like their full extent. They are occupied by three squadrons of the 2nd Dragoons. With regard to the argument of the honourable Member for Aberdeen, I confess that I do not altogether follow it in reference to the amount of money spent in Scotland as compared with this country. It seems to amount to this, that it is the duty of the War Office to provide a large expenditure for barracks in Scotland when there are no troops to put into them. His complaint was that a proportionate sum was not spent in Scotland. It may comfort the honourable Member, if I may put it that way, to know that there is a proposal in the Barracks Bill which will shortly be brought before the House for the expenditure of a sum which will not fall far short of £100,000 for the improvement of barrack accommodation in the city of Edinburgh.

DR. CLARK (Caithness)

Is all that for Edinburgh?

MR. BUCHANAN

Does that amount include the Piershill Barracks?

*MR. POWELL WILLIAMS

Yes, probably a large amount of money will be expended there. They are being retained because the Army sanitary authorities have never condemned them. They have always said that the barracks, if not overcrowded, were fit for occupation and suitable as barracks, except for the new point about the sewage farm. I have always understood that they were fit to be occupied by the troops. Then it is stated that disease has broken out, probably owing to the sewage farm, but I find on looking at the statistics that they do not bear out that statement. From the beginning of the present year to the end of last week the only case of zymotic disease recorded is one of scarlet fever, and that is the case of a trooper from Inverness who had only been in the barracks for one day, so that it is perfectly clear that he did not contract the disease in the barracks, but must have brought it in with him. Then there was also one case of diphtheria, but that was the case of a child in the school. When I go back to last year I find that there were six cases of pneumonia, four of them fatal; but I do not think that that disease was due to sewage contamination, or could be contracted in the same way as zymotic diseases. There were also three cases of scarlet fever amongst the men and four among the children. There was an epidemic of measles amongst the children, but that was doubtless part of the general epidemic of measles at the time in Edinburgh. Then there were three cases of diphtheria amongst the children, which were due to some defect in the drains. The drains were attended to and the matter was put right. I think the Committee will agree that, according to these statistics, which I have no doubt are substantially correct, there is no reason whatever to apprehend that the troops will suffer, at any rate from zymotic disease, in Piershill Barracks. Then an honourable Friend behind me thinks that whilst the men are in the barracks they are generally unhealthy, and do not feel well there. Well, Sir, I am perfectly willing to see that further inquiry is made in view of the vicinity of the sewage farm, and before further expenditure is proposed, beyond what is in this Vote, the whole question of the desirableness of retaining the Piershill site shall be carefully looked into.

MR. BUCHANAN

I am much obliged to the honourable Member for what he has said, but I fear he relies too much upon the statistics of mortality; for I think I stated, when I called attention to the subject, that you cannot gauge the extent of the mischief by the actual number of deaths, but by the health of the men who have occupied the barracks for some years past. I could lay before the honourable Gentleman private statements from medical and other authorities which I am perfectly certain would show that there has been serious illness amongst men, women, and children at the barracks for several years past. I therefore think it is very essential that there should be further inquiry into this matter, including the question of removing the men to more sanitary barracks.

*MR. PIRIE

I am cognisant of the fact that the subject was brought before the Committee last Session, and that a certain amount of attention was given to it. But I hold that a great deal more attention ought to have been given to it by the authorities, and for this reason, Sir, I feel justified in pressing my Motion for a reduction of the Vote.

DR. CLARK

If the Government are determined to put an end to this insanitary condition, which has caused disease and premature death, I do not think my honourable Friend ought to persevere with his Motion. We have it from the Financial Secretary that a Bill will be introduced, proposing to spend £100,000 for the purpose of carrying out the changes that are necessary to make the barracks healthy for the men, women, and children living there, and under the circumstances I doubt the wisdom of the course proposed by my honourable Friend. Next year, perhaps, if they are not carried out, we may divide the House against it. At the same time, I cannot help thinking that a charge ought to have been made 15 or 16 years ago. As far as some of these barracks are concerned, they are not fit for stabling horses in, much less for housing men, women, and children.

*MR. PIRIE

As I recognise only too well that the sole way for Scottish or Irish Members to get anything for their country from this House is to work with unanimity, and as my honourable Friend thinks that I should not press my Motion, I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment by leave withdrawn.

MR. ELLIOT

I rise for the purpose of expressing the desire that the honourable Gentleman the Secretary to the War Office will give his serious attention to the claim of Durham in the matter of barracks. The county of Durham is the source from whence the men of one of the territorial regiments are drawn, but nevertheless the county is without any headquarters or barracks. As a result, the popularity of the regiment in the county is decreasing. If the Vote for barracks cannot be increased so as to provide one for Durham County I would still ask the honourable Gentleman whether, at all events, he cannot bring before the people of the county the existence of the territorial regiment, by occasionally marching that regiment through the county, and in this way keep up its popularity with the source from whence its members are drawn.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

Motion made, and Question put— That Item N (Barracks), be reduced by £22,000, for Accommodation for Increased Garrison in South Africa."—(Mr. Buchanan.)

MR. BUCHANAN

There is another subject which I should like to bring before the Committee. I think we are at a disadvantage in discussing this Vote, because there are behind it other sums to be asked for barracks with regard to which we have no details. We are also in this position. We do not know how much money is going to be expended in the course of the current year under the Military Works Act. Of course, a great deal of the money under that Act goes for the purpose of barrack accommodation, but a large amount of the money is asked for upon somewhat imperfect information. Well, Sir, I want to call the attention of the Committee to one item, which, from a financial point of view, is a rather remarkable one, and that is the item under colonial charges for South Africa, viz.—"Complete accomcommodation for garrison." The total figures put down are £150,200. We have already spent £127,000, so that upon the actual Estimate of the year that sum has never appeared at all. In the Estimate of last year, viz., 1898–1899, and in the Estimate of 1897–98, there was no item for barrack accommodation in South Africa under this Vote. But in the Supplementary Estimate for last year, issued last February, the House was asked for a supplementary sum of £64,000, of which £62,000 was for the accommodation of troops at Natal. The total estimate was £77,000, and Natal was stated to be the only district in which barrack accommodation was to be made. Well, in the Supplementary Estimates, issued in February this year, £50,000 more is asked for "Accommodation for increased garrison in South Africa," and the Estimate has increased from £77,000 to £150,200. But we get no information as to the purpose for which this large sum of money is asked, or as to the reason for increasing it. I do think that the House of Commons ought to be better supplied with information by the officials of the War Office when these Estimates are brought before the Committee. I would call attention to the fact that not only have we got very little information, but we have even less information in the Estimates than we usually have. Hitherto, whenever a subject was entered in the Estimates, we had separate information with regard to the various items. Now, the sums, notwithstanding the fact that the total has largely increased, are lumped together, and absolutely no details are given to the House. I, therefore, hope the Financial Secretary will be able to give us the necessary details, and justify this vast increase of expenditure. I beg move the reduction of the sum by £22,000.

DR. CLARK

There is one question with reference to this Vote upon which I should like some information. In the first place, is it the case that some of these barracks on which we are going to spend the proposed sum of money are practically being bought back from the Cape Government? Then they are handed over by the Imperial Government for nothing? Secondly, why has the policy been changed? Why are you building these barracks in which to keep a large Imperial Army in South Africa? Until lately our policy, as far as the Cape Colony was concerned, was to let her defend herself. The Cape Mounted Rifles and the Colonial troops were considered to be quite sufficient for the purpose. Why, then, have you changed that policy? I think we ought to have some information on the subject.

*MR. POWELL WILLIAMS

Mr. Lowther, the sum of £150,000, to which the honourable Member for Aberdeenshire has referred, included the sum of £50,000 taken in the Supplementary Estimates. On the general question I have to inform the Committee that this sum of £150,000 has been built up piecemeal as necessity arose. Originally, when the troops were sent to South Africa, it was not proposed that the men should remain there any considerable time, nor was it supposed that their numbers would be increased. Accordingly, temporary accommodation only was contemplated. But, as time went on, it was found that other troops, to complete the units out there, were necessary, and the prospect of bringing these forces home again did not present itself at an early date. But the general officer commanding the district from time to time applied to the War Office for authority to house the troops in a way which would protect them from the severity of the climate. There was a very considerable amount of sickness in some of the stations, and the mortality amongst the horses was very severe. This was due to the unsatisfactory nature of the accommodation of the barracks which the troops occupied. It, therefore, became apparent to the Government that a great deal more than was first contemplated was necessary. Sums of money were accordingly supplied to convert the temporary into more permanent accommodation, in which the health and comfort of the troops would be secured, and that is the reason why the sum of £77,000 has grown in the course of time to the amount we have in the Estimate. I think, however, this may be taken as a final amount, that is to say, assuming there will be no necessity to add to the number of troops and horses. I can assure the Committee that the matter was most carefully looked into from time to time by Lord Lansdowne, and that there was no alternative—looking at the unsatisfactory accommodation for our soldiers there—but to provide them with accommodation of a far better character. With regard to the point raised by the honourable Member opposite (Dr. Clark), I find that the barracks were handed over to the Colony on condition that they should be given back when wanted for the defence of the Colony. Some of them have been given back without payment; others having been devoted to other purposes, cannot be returned; but in these cases an account between the Colony and the United Kingdom has been given. So my honourable Friend may take it that we have not been doing what he supposed we had been doing, i.e., paying for sites which once belonged to us.

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

I think that a more unsatisfactory statement I have never heard, and I hope my honourable Friend will go to a Division. In listening to the honourable Gentleman's speech, with no figures before us, one would really suppose that this amount covered a period of 20 years. What is the fact? Since the Estimates were before Parliament last year they have increased from £77,000 to £150,000. The honourable Gentleman tells us that it was thought necessary to send more troops to the Cape. Why, I ask, was it thought necessary? If at the beginning of the year it was considered that we had sufficient accommodation for the troops there, and that no further accommodation would be required, why has it been since thought necessary to send out more troops. Of course, I perfectly admit that if you have an enormous army at the Cape, and if you send more troops every year, you must afford them more accommodation. There is accommodation at Wynberg and Ladysmith in Natal, and along the Transvaal border you have established a camp, a sort of miniature Aldershot. Now, who are you doing this against? What enemy do you expect? Do you suppose that any European Power is going to spring a war upon you at the Cape? Is it to be understood that these proceedings are a menace to President Kruger? Is it supposed that President Kruger is going to invade the Cape or Natal or Rhodesia or any other place held under the British flag? Are we sending these large British garrisons in fear of this? I can see no reason why we should send additional troops there. Now, there are other Colonies—Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, but the defence of these Colonies is paid for by the Colonies themselves. We used to have troops in Canada, but we withdrew them; and in New Zealand, but we know what a mess was made of it there, and the Imperial troops have been withdrawn. We used also to have troops in Australia, but they have been withdrawn from there also. Why, in the name of wonder, are we to have British troops, paid for by British, money, at the Cape of Good Hope? What is the distinction that is made between the Cape and the other Colonies? Here we have barracks built in Elizabeth Town; why are we to garrison Elizabeth Town? If a garrison is required there, the Colony itself has got troops which it can use, or if there are not enough Colonial troops, and if the Colony thinks it requires them, it ought to raise its own troops and not throw the cost on us. I believe there is a sort of fortification at Simonstown, and that there are four or five hundred artillery men in the fort. Why can it be said that we must send more troops to man this fortress, which is of no use to us except as part of the route to India? It is quite evident that these additional troops are being sent out for the specific purpose of defending us from some imaginary enemy of Cape Colony and Natal. I believe they are being sent as a menace to President Kruger, and yet nobody dreams for a moment that President Kruger is at all likely to wage an offensive war against our Colonies there. We have heard a great deal about the £30,000 a year which the Cape has voted for a war ship. It seems to me that the Cape gets an exceedingly good bargain by it, and that the Cape ought to give a good deal more than £30,000 a year to balance the cost of the troops we send there when we do not send any troops to the other Colonies. We have a right to ask what the policy is of sending these large forces to the Cape, and I challenge the right honour- able Gentleman to explain and justify that policy. It is a very doubtful question whether we ought to raise large barracks there if there is an assumption that these garrisons are not to be maintained there for years.

*MR. POWELL WILLIAMS

I said that they would not in all probability soon be withdrawn.

MR. LABOUCHERE

I confess that is very much a distinction without a difference. On the minor point, how are these barracks to be paid for? We are told that these barracks are to be partly paid by us, and partly by the Colonies. We gave up those barracks when we adopted the wise and reasonable policy of not having Imperial troops at the Cape, just as in Canada. At that time it was agreed that if we ever required the barracks again they should be given back to us. But it appears they have not been given back to us, but an account has been put in by which we are to pay for them first, and the Cape Colony is going to pay us back the money. That is an extraordinary system of finance.

*GENERAL RUSSELL

I think that a true policy is being pursued by the Government in South Africa. Honourable Members must be very familiar with the large military preparations which have been made by the Transvaal Republic, and that from their previous history they are capable of the invasion of other territories than their own. Honourable Members must remember the large sum which it cost this country to resist the raid which the Boers made on Bechuanaland. Shortly afterwards they made a raid on Zululand, and they succeeded in having a large part of that country incorporated in their territory. I think under these circumstances the sending of British troops to South Africa is a precautionary measure which is absolutely necessary. Some honourable Members may have Boer sympathies, but I cannot imagine for one moment that those great military preparations in the Transvaal and the enormous amount of money spent on them can be made for purely defensive purposes. Whether they are or not, we must take measures in order to protect our own Colonies against the armed forces. Unless this Government strongly reinforces the garrisons at the Cape, the Boers might make an attack on Natal or make another raid on Bechuanaland, or on Swaziland, or Zululand. Granting that it was necessary to occupy the frontier of Natal by a sufficient force to keep the Boers in check—I can speak on this question from personal experience—it is absolutely necessary to increase the accommodation for the troops, because a year and a half ago, owing to the want of proper accommodation, an epidemic of typhoid fever broke out. I think the honourable Member for Caithness is under a mistake when he says that the great proportion of the money in this Vote is for barracks which we have already handed over to the Cape. So far as I understand it, this expenditure is for new barracks. I earnestly hope that the honourable Member for Northampton will give his attention to this matter, and if he cannot see that the policy of sending troops to the Cape is an absolute necessity forced on us by the Boers for the protection of our Colonies, at all events he will acknowledge that if the troops are there it is necessary to house them properly.

MR. BUCHANAN

I am sure I agree with my honourable and gallant Friend that the British troops in South Africa should have good sanitary accommodation considering the privations they have to undergo. But the honourable Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the War Office did not answer the question I put to him, and I think he might give us a little more information than he has already done. First of all, in regard to the reply to the honourable Member for Caithness, he rather indicated, as I understood him, that in some cases we were buying back barracks which originally belonged to us, and that the money so paid will be repaid by the Colony. Where does that appear in the Estimates? Can the honourable Gentleman point me to any item in the Estimates where provision of any sort is made for repayment of that money? On page 138 will be found a list of the Colonial contributions towards the Army Estimates, but the Cape Colony does not appear in the list at all as making any contribution towards the Army Estimates. There is an Estimate of £4,000 to be paid by Natal, but nothing that would represent a repayment by Cape Colony. Then, I should like to ask whether in the Loan Bill, to which I have referred, there is to be any sum asked for increased accommodation for the troops, in South Africa? The honourable Gentleman shakes his head, and I am glad. In the Military Works Act of 1897 a sum of £162,000 was asked for accommodation in Cape Colony, and I think Wynberg was mentioned in the Schedule. In the last Report we have had there is no mention of any money being spent, and I should like to know if that money has really been spent in the Colony. I come back to the question which I asked, and which has not been answered, namely, why there was no sum put in the main Estimates of last year for this matter? The right honourable Gentleman says, there has been a growing charge, that it was found that we had to send out more troops there, that they must be kept longer than was intended at first, and that we must have proper accommodation for them. But, surely, that might have been foreseen when last year's Estimates were introduced, because in the Supplementary Estimates there was an item introduced in February 1898. Are we to understand that between the time when the main Estimates were proposed for last year and the time the Supplementary Estimates were introduced, the case of urgency was so great that these large sums had to be spent? I say that is a very remarkable fact. It shows that the urgency must have been extremely great, or the foresight on the part of the War Office was very small. Another question which I asked, and which has not been answered, is, Why do we not get more details as to these items? We get less details upon them than even in the Supplementary Estimates. All that is stated is "South Africa: increased accommodation, £150,000." Now, this is one of the largest works provision on this branch of the Vote. If honourable Members would look at the items above and below that large item they will see that for a small work, "£3,500, in West Coast of Africa," we are told what it is for. And in the same way full details are given as to the works in Bermuda. And in Scotland, where the expenditure is only £12,000, there are no less than six items giving the details. Why do we not get some details as to the places in which this money is to be spent in South Africa? I ask on what barracks and on what works is this £150,000 to be spent? I find that there was some money spent at Wynberg, Williamstown, and Grahamstown, but the total amount, as far as I can make out, was very far from being like £150,000. Surely, the House of Commons, if it is adequate to the discussion of the Estimates, ought to be furnished with more details than at present. It may be that certain works are necessary, and that more sanitary accommodation should be provided for the troops stationed there, but why should we have so many details on the small Votes while on this, the largest Vote of its kind on the Estimates, there are no details?

DR. CLARK

The honourable Gentleman is like all of us, undoubtedly—in the dark. We have had no information, and we are really asking for information in regard to the various details of the expenditure of this £150,000. I know from past experience that some of the barracks mentioned were some years ago handed over to the Cape Colony for nothing, and I know now that you are buying them back. Since then the Government of Cape Colony handed them over to other parties, and we have got to buy them back from the new holders; but I take it that the Cape will pay us back the amount that they themselves received from these new holders. So that we are in a better position than I thought we were. Now, in regard to the policy of these new barracks, I think a great blunder has been committed at Wynberg. Wynberg is 900 miles from the nearest point where this terrible enemy is going to attack us. And Williamstown and Grahamstown will be even further off, for we have the Orange Free State as a buffer between us and the Transvaal, and our troops would have to pass through the Orange Free State or go round all the other way by Natal. So that if you wanted to have these large garrisons to meet this terrible enemy you ought to have had them 700 or 800 miles nearer. In the second place, if you are going to have troops at the Cape, you ought not to have them along the narrow strip of the sea coast, where you will have not the best conditions under which men can live and thrive. The sanitary conditions have been im- proved immensely, but if you were going to have a camp it should have been formed at a height of from 2,000 feet to 4,000 feet above the sea-level. The huts at Wynberg are the old barracks which were used when we were fighting the Transkei warriors. But now the Transkeis are perfectly quiet, and these former savages have even now European Parliaments. The Cape Colony is quite capable of doing its own work, so that the old reason for having special garrisons in special places has ceased to exist. Now, we are told the reason for these barracks and camps by the honourable and gallant Gentleman opposite. The fact is, the honourable and gallant Gentleman let the cat out of the bag. President Kruger, it is said, is spending money in firmaments. I believe that President Kruger has made a very great increase in his regular army; he has actually increased it from 100 to 500! So that you have 50,000 men to overawe that increased army of 500 men! We are told to remember their past history, and that the Boers made a raid into Zululand and other territories, and that we require to have this great force in South Africa to prevent them making fresh raids into British territory, and that the Transvaal was bounded by British territory and by the Orange Free State. The honourable and gallant Gentleman has not accurately stated what did occur in Zululand. After the death of Cetewayo two parties began fighting each other—the Zebbettas and the Assutos—and one of the parties went into the Transvaal to get Transvaallers to come and assist them. The Transvaal Government had no more to do with these Transvaallers going to the help of one party in the native quarrel than the British Government had to do with the British settlers who went to the assistance of the other party—the Zebbettas. So far a s Swaziland is concerned, the honourable and gallant Gentleman is entirely mistaken. It is now a portion of the Transvaal, and that has been done by a Convention made and signed between the British and the Transvaal Governments. There was no raid at all into Swaziland, and there was nothing to justify the insinuation that a raid ever did occur. So far as Bechuanaland is concerned, when the unfortunate Transvaal War occurred there was some fighting between Bechuanas and Zulus. But Bechuanaland was at that time, in no shape or form, even under the sphere of influence of Great Britain, and we had no more to do with the inhabitants there, practically, than we had to do with the condition of things in Central Africa. All you had was fighting between one chief and another, and white men helping them for the purpose of getting cheap farms. Then these men settled down on their farms and began to organise themselves into the Republic of Goschen and the Republic of Stellaland, which we have taken possession of. But there were no boundaries fixed. When we occupied the Transvaal, Bechuanaland was a portion of the Transvaal. The question became of importance really only when we had to get to the North into Rhodesia, and the only way was through the Bechuana country. We acquired that strip of country, and now by Convention with the Transvaal Government the boundaries have been determined. One would have thought that the honourable and gallant Gentleman would have been satisfied with the fact that £100,000 had been spent in Johannesburg in order to get up a rebellion. This demand for an additional £150,000 represents a charge of £1 per head for every man, woman, and child in the Transvaal, in order that we may keep a large force there for the purpose of preventing these terrible people from doing certain things. I only hope the House and the country will be satisfied with the explanation; I, at any rate, am not.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

I think my honourable Friend the Member for Northampton has asked some questions which require an answer. There has been a question of taking back barracks and sites of barracks at the Cape. My honourable Friend cannot understand why we should, in this sum we are asked to vote, be paying the Cape authorities for that for which they are to repay us in a few years.

*MR. POWELL WILLIAMS

We are not paying it.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

I understand that when the barracks were surrendered they were surrendered on the condition that they should be given back if required, and now when they are required they have in some cases been applied to other purposes, and will so remain, and other sites or buildings will be substituted for them.

*MR. POWELL WILLIAMS

We get an equivalent.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

In money or in kind? I do not know exactly what the honourable Gentleman means.

*MR. POWELL WILLIAMS

Where the barracks cannot be given back to us in their original state to accommodate the number of troops they originally accommodated, then the Colony will have to pay for them, or provide other barracks for us themselves.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

There seems to be a little mystery about it. The main point is really this—the number of troops that we maintain at the Cape has been largely increased. It has run up from 3,300 a few years ago to over 9,000 now. When we had the 3,300 there it was fully expected we should be able to reduce the number, and there were proposals to bring home part even of that comparatively small force. The increase to 9,000 is a serious matter. I suppose it is part of the legacy of the Jameson Raid.

AN HONOURABLE MEMBER

Majuba.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

Then the Majuba incident is somewhat late in taking effect, as a considerable interval has elapsed since that time and the present increase. I am not one who would for a moment dispute the discretion and authority of the Government in a matter of that kind. They know what is required by the necessities of the case, and if they come to the House, and on their own responsibility say a large increase of the garrisons at the Cape is necessary in consequence of the condition of affairs there, it would be a strong order for anyone to oppose it. On the other hand, when they propose to build barracks for that larger force, that means there is to be the maintenance of a permanent garrison of that increased size, and that is a complete reversal of the policy which has been pursued for the last 25 or 30 years. The temporary reinforcement of garrisons is a matter which, for my part, I should not like to take the responsibility of resisting when the occasion arises, unless there is something unusual in the circumstances; but when there is a proposal to build barracks for this force, it means a permanent occupation of the country and a complete departure from the old policy of bringing back troops from the Colonies and leaving the Colonies to contribute more largely to their own defence, which has been followed all over the Empire for the last 30 years.

SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

I had not the advantage of hearing the speech of the honourable Member for Caithness, but I understood that the right honourable Gentleman who last spoke accused the Government of a change of policy because certain barracks were being constructed for the reception of our garrisons. He stated the number of our troops in the Transvaal at 9,000, and I assume that in that he was correct. But is the right honourable Gentleman unaware of the enormous change which has taken place in South Africa within the last few years? Has he forgotten that the Transvaal is now practically an armed camp? Is he aware that they can put into the field a fighting force of from 15,000 to 20,000 men at a very few days' notice? Does he know that Johannesburg and Pretoria are both dominated by an artillery force? I submit that the increase in the forces at the Cape is justified by the attitude of a neighbouring State there, which is not friendly either in policy or in feeling to this country, and that, therefore, we ought to keep strong garrisons in South Africa.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

That may justify an increase for a temporary purpose, but when you erect for a great force permanent barracks you cannot think that better relations with the State to which the honourable Member has referred will ever be attained.

SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT

Not in the least. The right honourable Gentleman knows that is a mere quibble.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

Order, order! That is not the proper word to use. I hope the honourable Member will withdraw it.

SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT

I was not aware that the word "quibble" was unparliamentary, but if it is I will withdraw it immediately. I did not use it in an offensive sense, and I will substitute for it the word "artifice." I will suggest that the statement of the right honourable Gentleman was an "artifice of discussion" which cannot be fairly sustained. Can the right honourable Gentleman give us the smallest evidence that these great armed forces in the Transvaal—a country not friendly to us—are likely to be reduced? When we have any sign of that I think there will be some justification for asking for a diminution of our expenditure upon barracks. But it is evident from what is happening that the policy of this State is not such as is likely to tend to the establishment of what the right honourable Gentleman calls friendly relations between Great Britain and the Transvaal. We were told by the Colonial Secretary that the condition of affairs there was intolerable, and that justice was being denied to our countrymen. We know what the policy of the Transvaal means. It is directed to the establishment of an anti-British independent Republic in the heart of our possessions in South Africa. While that exists—and it cannot be denied that it does exist, for the franchise is being given to foreigners and denied to British subjects, and everything is being done to stifle the power and deny civil rights to British residents in the Transvaal—it surely is impossible for the right honourable Gentleman to say that there is any immediate prospect of more friendly relations being established there, or that it would be safe for the Government to reduce their armed force in South Africa. I hold that it would be most dangerous to attempt any such reduction, and I believe that if there is one expenditure in which the people of this country will support the Government it is the military expenditure necessary to maintain our predominant position in South Africa, where our trade is enormous. I do not think that anyone can reasonably say, in view of the armed and semi-hostile condition of the Transvaal, that a force of 9,000 men is an excessive one, and I am sure the House of Commons and the country will thoroughly endorse the action of the Government in proposing this Vote.

MR. LABOUCHERE

I do not propose to follow the last speaker in his references to affairs in the Transvaal. He has talked about the feeling which exists between the Transvaal and the Cape, but may I point out to him that in Cape Colony there is the best of feeling at present towards the Transvaal Republic, as is shown by the fact that a majority have been returned at the recent elections specifically on the ground that they are opposed to the raiders against the Transvaal and to the supporters of those raiders in this country? I fail to follow the Financial Secretary in his explanations as to the reasons for this change of policy. I cannot understand why he should pay back this money. It is evident that this Vote does not represent the full amount spent upon barracks. We have been withdrawing garrisons from every other Colony in order to increase the garrison at the Cape, and the result is that a permanent charge of £1,000,000 for that garrison has been added to the burdens of the taxpayer.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

I am glad this question has been raised, for I desire to know how the Government justify the maintaining of a force of 9,000 men at the Cape as a permanent force. It is a most expensive arrangement. It will involve a burden of at least.£1,000,000 a year. I want to know why such a large garrison is required. I say that this is a monstrous proposal, and the Government are bound to justify their policy to the House before we pass this Vote. Why is a larger garrison required in Cape Colony than in Australia, New Zealand, or Canada? It looks as if the Government are anticipating some great war in South Africa, or as if they are preparing for some secret expedition. During the last two years we have been resisting a large increase in our military expenditure, and we have been told by Ministers again and again, in reply to our protests, that the proposed increase has been absolutely essential to the safety of the Empire. Let the Government defend their present proposal by explaining what is the motive for the increase of force at the Cape. I believe that this policy is aimed at the Transvaal. I hold that it is a most mischievous policy, and that if we maintain this minatory attitude the only effect will be to increase the feeling of alarm, irritation, and hostility in regard to this country now prevailing in the Transvaal. Under these circumstances, it is our duty to resist in every way we possibly can this attempt to keep up ill-feeling in South Africa.

MR. LOWLES (Shoreditch, Haggerston)

I believe if the honourable Member for East Mayo had any knowledge of the history of South Africa and of Australia, he would have seen that his comparison between the two was utterly wrong. He would have known, had he studied the history of South Africa, that there we obtained our position by conquest, and that we have always been surrounded by hostile forces among the Dutch and the native populations, whereas in Australia we have no enemies. These hostile forces in South Africa have operated against us in years gone by, and may operate against us again. It would, therefore, be most unwise for us to weaken our position in that Colony by a single man. The inhabitants there look to the British Government to protect them against possible outrage and against aggression and injustice, and until things there are on a better footing we are bound to support the Government in keeping up our military forces there.

MR. DUNCOMBE (Cumberland, Egremont)

I do not think I should be doing my duty to my constituents if I did not say a word of protest against the disgraceful manner in which British subjects have been treated in that part of the world. I hope the Government will not be guided in any way by the remarks of the honourable Member for East Mayo, and that if they do anything, they will increase, rather than decrease, the permanent garrison in South Africa.

MR. DILLON

The remarks of the honourable Member for Haggerston seem to suggest I am entirely ignorant of the history of Australia and the Cape. He is quite in error. His speech confirms me in the opposition I feel bound to give to this extraordinary Vote. The honourable Member has shown clearly that this enormous garrison is directed against the Boers and the Dutch population generally of Cape Colony.

MR. LOWLES

I beg the honourable Member's pardon. I did not mean to convey anything of the kind. All I said was that there have been Dutch risings in the past history of the Cape.

MR. DILLON

The honourable Member spoke of the Dutch population of Cape Colony, and said we had had a rising of the Dutch, and we might have a rising of them again. Is that the spirit in which to speak of a Colony like this? The honourable Member also said we had won our position there by conquest. We won our position in Canada by conquest; but are we going to use language like that to the French Canadians? We do not maintain any force in Canada.

MR. LOWLES

Canada does itself.

MR. DILLON

It is manifest that on the Benches opposite—whether it be in the minds of the Government or not I cannot say—it is thought that these preparations are made in view not only of a possible conflict with the Transvaal, but a possible conflict with the Dutch population of the Colony, of whom the honourable Member spoke as enemies in the past and possible enemies in the future. Practically, what the honourable Member said was, that we had won this Colony by conquest, and we meant to keep it by force of arms if we were driven to it.

MR. LOWLES

Yes, if necessary

MR. DILLON

If the Government are foolish enough to avow that policy we shall not keep South Africa very long, because the day has gone by when we can keep any self-governing Colony against its will. It is because I believe that this system of shipping out troops to South Africa may lead to a condition of things which will be fraught with ruin to that Colony, and disaster and shame to this country, that I shall resist these large Votes for keeping up the garrisons.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY

I must beg the Committee not to continue this somewhat irritating discussion upon the question of South Africa. The honourable Gentleman who has just sat down entirely mistook, I believe, the tenor and the temper of the speech delivered by my honourable Friend behind me upon the subject of our relations with the Colonies. That is my opinion. It is also the opinion of the honourable Gentleman who made the speech, and that, I take it, should carry conviction to those who, no doubt without intending it, misinterpreted the views of my honourable Friend. The idea that these troops in South Africa are there in order to coerce our fellow subjects in Cape Colony is extravagant and absurd beyond any words that I have at my command adequately to express. No such thought has ever crossed the mind, I imagine, of anybody responsible for the conduct of our Colonial affairs. The Vote that we are on raises the question of the policy of keeping troops in South Africa; but I would venture to point out to the Committee that this is a small Vote, intended for no other purpose than that of keeping in health the troops that we feel ourselves bound to keep there on our responsibility as a Government. That responsibility partly arises, no doubt, out of the necessity of increasing our garrisons at the coaling stations at the Cape, as we have increased our garrisons at other coaling stations, but it has no relation whatever to the internal affairs of South Africa. Part of the increase is due to a possibility that might arise in that region of the world. Nothing is gained by discussing in detail all the conceivable possibilities which might make these troops necessary; and I do not think we could, as a Government, with advantage go into details on the matter. Nor have I ever heard of an executive and responsible Government being asked to go into details on such a matter. Let me say we have no desire to interfere with any man's rights; all we desire there, as elsewhere throughout the world, is to maintain our own. I hope the Committee will now feel that they have discussed this question at sufficient length, and will allow this Vote to be taken.

DR. CLARK

I know something of these people, and I believe that the Dutch in South Africa are among the most loyal portions of Her Majesty's subjects anywhere in the world. Great Britain could have no firmer friends than President Kruger and the Boers of the Transvaal. They are a conservative people, who have been afraid of their independence being taken away, and all they desire is to be left alone. They will only fight if they are attacked. I am glad to hear that these alarmist objections are unfounded, that this Vote was simply a continuance of the old con-

dition of things, and that there is no intention of doing anything except to defend our own.

Motion made, and Question put— That Item N (Barracks) be reduced by £22,000, for accommodation for increased garrison in South Africa."—(Mr. Buchanan.)

The Committee divided:—Ayes 80; Noes 150.—(Division List No. 88.)

AYES.
Allan, Wm. (Gateshead)	Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-	Pirie, Duncan V.
Asher, Alexander	Hazell, Walter	Power, Patrick Joseph
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert H.	Hutton, A.E. (Morley)	Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.)
Atherley-Jones, L.	Jacoby, Jas. Alfred	Provand, A. Dryburgh
Austin, Sir J. (Yorkshire)	Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)	Reckitt, Harold James
Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)	Kay-Shuttleworth, R(Hn.SirU.	Richardson, J. (Durham)
Balfour, Rt Hn J. B. (Clackm.)	Kinloch, Sir John G. Smyth	Rickett, J. Compton
Billson, Alfred	Labouchere, Henry	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Bolton, Thos. Dolling	Lambert, George	Roberts, J. H. (Denbighsh.)
Burt, Thomas	Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)	Robson, W. Snowdon
Caldwell, James	Leng, Sir John	Shaw, T. (Hawick Burghs)
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Lewis, John Herbert	Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)
Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson-	Macaleese, Daniel	Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Channing, Francis Allston	McArthur, Wm. (Cornwall)	Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.
Davitt, Michael	McDermott, Patrick	Strachey, Edward
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir C.	M'Ghee, Richard	Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Dillon, John	McKenna, Reginald	Trevelyan, Chas. Philips
Donelan, Captain A.	McLeod, John	Wallace, Robt. (Edinburgh)
Duckworth, James	Maddison, Fred.	Wallace, Robert (Perth)
Farquharson, Dr. R.	Maden, John Henry	Warner, T. Courtenay T.
Fenwick, Charles	Mappin, Sir Fredk. Thorpe	Weir, James Galloway
Ferguson, R. C. M. (Leith)	Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand	Whittaker, T. Palmer
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond	Molloy, Bernard Charles	Williams, J. Carvell (Notts.)
Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)	Moulton, John Fletcher	Wilson, John (Govan)
Goddard, Daniel Ford	Nussey, Thomas Willans
Gourley, Sir E. Temperley	O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Buchanan and Dr. Clark.
Haldane, Richard Burdon	Oldroyd, Mark
Harrington, Timothy	Pease, J. A. (Northumb.)
NOES.
Acland-Hood. Capt. Sir A. F.	Brassey, Albert	Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.
Allhusen, A. Henry E.	Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Dunn, Sir William
Allsopp, Hon. George	Butcher, John George	Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas
Arrol, Sir William	Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward	Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.
Ascroft, Robert	Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbysh.)	Finch, George H.
Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir E.	Cayzer, Sir Chas. Wm.	Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Cecil, E. (Hertford, E.)	Fisher, William Hayes
Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy	Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)	Fitzgerald, Sir R. Penrose-
Baird, J. G. Alexander	Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Folkestone, Viscount
Balcarres, Lord	Charrington, Spencer	Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)
Balfour, Rt. Hn.A.J.(Manch'r)	Coghill, Douglas Harry	Fry, Lewis
Balfour,Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)	Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Garfit, William
Banbury, Fredk. George	Compton, Lord Alwyne	Gedge, Sydney
Barnes, Frederic Gorell	Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)	Giles, Chas. Tyrrell
Barry, RtHnAHSmith-(Hunts.	Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Goldsworthy, Major-General
Barry, Sir F. T. (Windsor)	Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon
Bartley, George C. T.	Cox, Irwin, E. B. (Harrow)	Goschen, Geo. J. (Sussex)
Barton, Dunbar Plunket	Cranborne, Viscount	Goulding, Edw. Alfred
Bathurst, Hon. A. Benjamin	Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)	Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)
Beach,RtHnSirM.H.(Bristol)	Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs
Beckett, Ernest William	Denny, Colonel	Helder, Augustus
Bentinck, Lord Henry C.	Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.	Howard, Joseph
Beresford, Lord Charles	Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. D.	Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle
Bill, Charles	Dorington, Sir J. Edward	Hozier, Hon. J. Henry Cecil
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Doughty, George	Hutton, J. (Yorks, N. R.)
Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)	Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-	Jebb, R. Claverhouse
Jessel, Capt. Herbt. Merton	Nicholson, William Graham	Spencer, Ernest
Johnston, Wm. (Belfast)	Nicol, Donald Ninian	Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)
Kenyon, James	Northcote, Hon. Sir H.S.	Stanley, H. M. (Lambeth)
Kenyon-Slaney, Col. Wm.	Orr-Ewing, Chas. Lindsay	Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Laurie, Lieut.-General	Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)	Stewart Sir Mark J.M. Taggart
Lawrence,SirE.Durning-(Corn.	Pierpoint, Robert	Strutt, Hon. Chas. Hedley
Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)	Pilkington, Richard	Sutherland, Sir Thomas
Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)	Purvis, Robert	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. E. H.	Rankin, Sir James	Thorburn, Walter
Leigh-Bennett, H. Currie	Rasch, Major Frederic C.	Tritton, Charles Ernest
Loder, Gerald W. Erskine	Rentoul, James Alexander	Valentia, Viscount
Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)	Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson	Warde, Lieut.-Col. C.E.(Kent)
Lopes, H. Yarde Buller	Robertson, H. (Hackney)	Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)
Lowe, Francis William	Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.	Webster, Sir R.E.(I. of W.)
Lowles, John	Round, James	Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.
Lucas-Shadwell, William	Royds, Clement Molyneux	Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)
Macartney, W. G. Ellison	Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham)	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath
McArthur, Charles (Liverpool)	Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
McCalmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.	Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)	Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Middlemore, J. Throgmorton	Seton-Karr, Henry	Young, Com. (Berks, E.)
Morrell, George Herbert	Sharpe, William E. T.
Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)	Sidebotham, T. H. (Stalybr.)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Mount, William George	Simeon, Sir Barrington
Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)	Smith, Abell H. (Christchurch)
Murray, C. J. (Coventry)	Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks.)
Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)	Smith, Hon. W.F.D. (Strand)

Original Question put, and agreed to.

MR. COURTNEY WARNER

I want to point out one rather curious thing that I think comes under this Vote. A Considerable amount is voted to the Household Brigades in London, and there are also certain amounts voted for barrack works at Gibraltar; but there is one important thing which is quite a small matter which is not provided for at Gibraltar. There is no accommodation there for officers' wives and families. The result of that is, when any of the officers of the Household Brigade have to go for two or three years' run to Gibraltar they have to be separated from their wives. It is not a question of money, but a question of being unable to obtain houses; the few houses that there are there are occupied by people for their business or private purposes. It is a well-known fact that there is no accommodation for the married officers, and I do hope that the War Office will see their way to give some promise that they will either buy some houses or some land upon which houses can be built, so that officers may have the advantage of having their families with them. And in order to put myself in order, I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £5,000. If is on page 75. "Works, Gibraltar."

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

The honourable Member is under some misapprehension. The item to refers to appears to be War Department Building and the Main Sewer. It is rather unusual to raise a question on an item to which it has no reference. He can, however, raise the question without moving the reduction, and obtain an answer.

*MR. POWELL WILLIAMS

The matter to which the honourable and gallant Gentleman refers has not been overlooked, and is receiving the consideration of the Secretary of State for War, and if the House in the future will grant the loan referred to, it will be found that that very question is being considered.

MR. COURTENAY WARNER

I quite accept the answer from the hounourable Gentleman. I just want to point out before I sit down this one thing, that it really ought not to cost anything at all, because, as I understand, the officers are quite willing to pay for the accommodation if they can get it; unfortunately they are unable to get it.

COLONEL WELBY

Will the Financial Secretary kindly reply to the question which I have put to him?

*MR. POWELL WILLIAMS

It is impossible to provide at present the sum of £1,000 or £1,200 for that purpose, but as soon as the money is provided for it it shall be carried out.

*MR. WEIR

I wish to call attention to the accommodation for the 3rd Battalion Seaforth Highlanders at Fort George, and I shall be glad to hear from the honourable Gentleman that in future the battalion will be trained at Dingwall. Arrangements should be made to have this battalion trained in the county town, and I hope that this suggestion will receive the attention of the honourable Gentleman, and that some of this money which is to be spent on barrack accommodation in various parts of Scotland will be devoted to this purpose. There is one other matter which I would refer to before I sit down. A sum of £600 is set aside for improving the water supply and barrack accommodation at Fort George. I do not think that £600 is sufficient.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

The honourable Member is now going back to an item which has been passed.

*MR. WEIR

With regard to the water supply at Fort George, there is an arrangement to take water from a hole in the common about half a mile from the barracks. The parish council is arranging for a supply of pure water from the hills, and I think it would be desirable if the War Office were to combine with the parish council and get good water from the mountains instead of brackish water from this hole in the common. I hope the War Office will take steps to stop the present arrangement, seeing it is not satisfactory.

*MR. POWELL WILLIAMS

I have already pointed out to the honourable Member that we have had advice which convinced us that a proper supply of water could be had; it is not necessary to go to the hills, which would cost £500 a year. With regard to the other question raised by the honourable Member, I might remind him that it is a good many years since we first raised the question. It was first raised in the time of the late Government, and the right honourable Gentleman then the Secretary of State for War said that it was not desirable to make the change, and that there were military reasons against it. The present Secretary of State for War has come to the same conclusion. The change which the honourable Member desires would entail further building at Dingwall, which would be very expensive, and for which there is no necessity. The scheme, therefore, has not been gone into.

Motion made, and Question proposed— That a sum, not exceeding £3,425,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Provisions, Forage, and other Supplies, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1900.

*MR. STRACHEY (Somerset, S.)

I desire to ask a question on sub-section B, which refers to forage. On that point I wish to ask the Financial Secretary if he will give me his attention on this question, as he stated two years ago that the Government had impressed upon commanding officers the desirability of purchasing forage from local sources. I want to ask him what has been done in that matter, and also whether he has considered the desirability of stipulating in the contracts given that English and not foreign forage should be supplied. Forage supplied from home sources is very much better, and can be obtained at the same price, regard being had to the quality.

*MR. POWELL WILLIAMS

The general officers commanding districts who purchase the supplies are under general instructions to buy from local sources so far as they can, but in all these cases there is an element not, perhas, in the mind of the honourable Member, and that is certainty and regularity of supply. In the interests of the Army it has been found desirable to be quite assured of regular supply, but the forage supplied, whether it is foreign or home grown, is bought by sample, and if the forage is up to that sample we do not inquire too far as to where it was produced. If you were to insist upon a stipulation as to the place of production, and if you were to try to make sure, if the goods were supplied in very large quantities, whether they actually came from the place of origin stipulated for, it would be very difficult to verify. There is no doubt also that the question of supply of forage is after all of very much less importance than is sometimes supposed. The question has been gone into most carefully, and the authorities have arrived at the conclusion that it is perfectly impossible to lay down any special conditions as to the place of origin. The Secretary of State for War is anxious, so far as it is possible to do so and is consistent with economy, quality, and certainty of supply, that local purchases shall be resorted to. I say that particularly with regard to some Irish stations, where a large proportion of what is bought may be safely reckoned to be home produced. The question of cost also comes in; and quality, of course, is a consideration. It is the duty of the Secretary of State for War to feed Army horses at the least possible expense. And I hope the Committee will agree with me that the element of expense is important when it comes to be considered that the expenditure on forage is always a considerable item.

Motion made, and Question proposed— That Item B (Forage, etc.), be reduced by £100."—(Mr. Strachey.)

*MR. STRACHEY

After the very unsatisfactory reply of the honourable Gentleman I certainly think it is necessary to move a reduction of the Vote. The honourable Gentleman did not attempt to answer my question with reference to the statement made by his colleague, that it was desirable that a stipulation should be put into the contracts that the forage should be home produced. Is it because that when the honourable Gentleman made that statement a Liberal Government was in power, and that he has changed his mind as he crossed the floor of the House? I do not think he has changed his mind, and if attention is called to it he will urge his colleagues to make that stipulation. So far as the honourable Gentleman has told us, his own statement is nothing more than that an instruction has been given to commanding officers that they should so far as possible buy from the local markets. That is not the question. It is whether the War Office should buy from English and Irish sources instead of buying from abroad. Why does he not say it is much easier and much cheaper to buy forage from abroad? It is not an argument we should expect to hear from the Conservative Government, who generally—and certainly when they are in opposition—complain that the Government are not doing all they can for the British producer. Now it is the turn of the Conservatives to neglect the interests of the British farmer and British producer in these questions. If it was a question of price only we might buy from abroad, or where we could get the best quality; it is a question of expense, and if you can buy cheaper foreign oats than English or Scotch they will be bought, even if they are not of so good a quality.

*MR. POWELL WILLIAMS

I said forage was bought according to sample; and it is a first-rate sample.

*MR. STRACHEY

The honourable Gentleman said that was an element, but he also laid great stress on the expense, and he did not attempt to show that he was able to get better oats from abroad than he could get at home at a cheaper price. If he could do that I quite admit that my argument falls to the ground. He has not been able to show that, and I doubt if we could get any Member to rise from his own side and say that you can buy better forage for horses abroad than you can buy in England. The expense, no doubt, must be considered, but quality is the first consideration. You must get the best quality, say, of hay, or oats, at whatever price necessary. You cannot get a better quality from abroad at a cheaper price, and upon that ground I move my Amendment.

MR. MADDISON (Sheffield, Brightside)

There can be no doubt that this is simply rank protection. It is sufficiently so, at all events, from my point of view, and is sufficient to make me do what I always feel great trouble in doing, and that is vote for the Tory Party. The Financial Secretary to the War Office said that instructions were given that, so far as possible, commanding officers were to draw their supplies from local sources. And then he told us they had samples. I think I am right in saying we have no commanding officer who would for the sake of cheapness give to his horses inferior forage. Army men are not too particular as a rule as to economy, because they get their money so easily. Therefore, I think you may take it for granted that the horses in our Army do not get inferior forage. If that is so, it must be a question of cost. And I object altogether to the peculiar idea which has come from this side of the House that we are to indulge in protection. We hold strong views on the question of the Army, and we are not going to allow it to play these pranks with our fiscal system.

*MR. STRACHEY

I say if equally good quality can be bought abroad at a lower price, let it be bought by all means, but I object to inferior quality being brought from abroad at a lower price, and putting cheapness before value.

MR. MADDISON

That means that we are simply to take from the honourable Gentleman the fact that the samples are inferior. The War Office tells us different, and between the two statements I prefer to accept that of the War Office. I think there is another thing that underlies the idea of this reduction as well as giving a better quality of forage to the horses. If that is so the honourable Gentleman must not content himself with a mere dogmatic assertion. He must be prepared to give us chapter and verse for his statement. He must bring evidence from military men that our horses are being fed on inferior forage. I myself shall vote for the Government, if this reduction is pressed to a Division, in defence of free trade principles. I object altogether to the notion that we are to spend more money in forage for the Army by, under all circumstances, getting home-grown production; because that means to many men taking money out of their pockets. It means that it must come out of the pockets of the taxpayers, and if the money were left in their pockets it would give a remunerative return. The plain truth is, if the reduction is supported, I do not see how we can advocate the principles of free trade.

*MR. STRACHEY

Nonsense.

MR. MADDISON

It may be nonsense, but it happens to be my opinion, and, therefore, I repeat that the object of this Motion is the object of all Protectionists—the so-called interest of the British farmer. He is a very important person, but if we had been led by him this country would have been in a very deplorable condition. I hope the honourable Gentleman will not press his Motion, but if he does I shall certainly support the Government.

COLONEL WELBY

I think what ought to be considered in this Motion is what is best for the horses. Because the condition of the horses tells immensely. Commanding officers are very much judged by the condition of their horses, and the way in which they stand their work. My experience always has been that it is a stand-up fight between the commanding officer and the forage contractor. If you are to discriminate between the places where the produce is grown, it will put a very strong weapon into the hands of the middle man. In Ireland I have seen load after load of hay taken in that anybody would be ashamed of, home produce, and we all know that the Irishman has a large and vivid imagination; when you ask where that hay was grown they point to the richest meadow in the district, and if you disbelieve them they are ready to bring 20 men to prove that what they say is true. I hope that the War Office will look to the advantage of the horses, without considering where the produce may be grown.

LORD E. FITZMAURICE (Wilts, Cricklade)

I am quite aware that there is a great deal of interest taken in this matter in the district which the honourable Gentleman the Member for West Somerset, who brought this Motion, represents. I cannot, however, but think that my honourable Friend went rather further than he intended, and to a certain extent left himself open to the criticism of the honourable Member for Sheffield, that if this argument was pushed to its logical conclusion we might find ourselves in a position that some day would be described by the word Protection. I do not think that that is what my Friend intended. He might have construed the assurance of the Financial Secretary more favourably. I might remind the I Committee that I think the part of England which the honourable Gentleman represents, and which I also represent, has nothing to fear from the Government in respect to this matter, because there is no other part of England so strongly represented in the Cabinet, and I think they will have full justice done to them. I think the proper way to remedy this matter is by a fair competition between home-grown and foreign produce. This matter should be left to legitimate competition, and I believe in the case of forage—in fact, the other day I saw a statement made to the effect that foreign produce came into this country in larger quantities and better packed, and that that had resulted in a combination of the farmers in the South of England in order that they could send their produce to the places where the War Office wanted them under the same conditions. By leaving this matter to competition you obtain the remedy you desire, and, therefore, I hope that my honourable Friend will see his way to withdraw the Motion which he has made, and that he will be satisfied with the discussion which he has raised.

*MR. STRACHEY

Of course, I at once respond to the appeal that has been made by the noble Lord. All I desired to do was to protest against feeding our cavalry horses on bad forage from abroad because it was cheap. If as good and cheaper can be bought abroad, by all means let the War Office buy it, and I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

*MR. POWELL WILLIAMS

Before we leave this subject I should like to point out that there is no middle course in this matter. Either you are going to have free competition, which means buying the most suitable forage in the best market, or you are going to give a preference. What is the preference that you are going to give?

*MR. STRACHEY

Give a preference to the best. There is no middle course to be taken, and the only thing to be done is to give the preference to the best article whether English or foreign.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed— That a sum, not exceeding £1,090,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Clothing Establishments and Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1900.

Motion made, and Question proposed— That a sum, not exceeding £1,089,900, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Courtenay Warner.)

MR. COURTENAY WARNER

There is one thing which is still continued in the Service to which I should like to call attention. That is, in attempting to clothe the troops we give them two shirts to last them the whole time that they are in the Army. I think it is quite time that this was done away with, and they should be supplied with a certain number of shirts to last them through their term of service. I think it is disgraceful that this subject should have to be brought up year after year and for the Minister to reply only that he will do what he can, and the troops have to find their own shirts and deductions are made from their pay to buy them. There is another serious deduction that I think something ought to be done to stop, and that is in the question of boots. Two pairs of boots will not last a year with all the marching of our troops, and considerable deductions have to be made for repairing and buying new boots. The question of shirts is most disgraceful, and I think something ought to be done in the matter. Therefore, to put myself in order, I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £100. Of course, if the War Office is prepared to do something in the matter I shall have great pleasure in withdrawing my Motion. I do think that this subject ought to be brought up until something is done to remedy it. It is a real grievance in the Army. There is another question I should like to ask about, and that is the new cap which is to be brought out. I should like to ask what regiments will be supplied with the new caps?

*MR. POWELL WILLIAMS

It is a rather astonishing thing to me that while my honourable Friend and those who act with him make great complaints as to the amount of the Army Estimates as a whole, they are so often disposed to urge upon the Secretary of State for War all sorts of increases which would make a very great difference in our expenditure. I should not say so much if it was not the fact that the Secretary of State has done more for the comfort of the private soldier, or, at any rate, as much as any of his predecessors. The question to which the honourable Member addressed his remarks has been considered, and many articles of clothing have been added to those given to the private soldier. But we cannot go beyond a certain point in these things, and I do not think anything can be done in the direction that he asked for some time. The question involves considerably more than the honourable Member thinks. If the time comes when a further concession can be made in that direction it will be made. With regard to the point as to the caps, I cannot answer at present as to the extent to which the caps will be issued.

*MR. WEIR

There is a very considerable amount of money put down for boots. I should like to know whether arrangements could not be made to have Army boots made in Government factories. We all know how our soldiers suffered in the Soudan in consequence of their boots giving out. I cannot conceive why the Government should not undertake the manufacture of Army boots.

MR. POWELL WILLIAMS

What the honourable Gentleman suggests is, that the boots instead of being bought at present under the contract—and the very best quality are bought—the Government should embark in the experiment of making boots themselves. For that purpose a considerable capital outlay would be necessary, and the difficulties which surround the Government in embarking in experiments of that kind would be increased. I do not think the suggestion is a practical one.

*SIR C. DILKE (Gloucester, Forest of Dean)

Some of us think on this side of the House that the Government ought to move with the times. You will not get the men to enlist if you do not give more comfort than they have at the present time. I do not think that my Friend would do well to divide the House upon this matter, because the only result of that would be that a number of people would come into the House and vote upon the question without knowing anything about the matter, and that would not be a fair test of the opinion of this House. My honourable Friend elaborates this point as to the shirts, which may seem a small and yet costly one. But I think my honourable Friend is right, and I think my honourable Friends behind me, who are economists, would nevertheless support my honourable Friend in saying that this change was desirable, and that he did well to bring that point forward.

COLONEL WELBY

I think the question of the comforts of the soldiers is not one to be ignored. When a young man joins the Army he finds the provision made for these matters of underwear, etc., is totally inadequate. And a recruit for a long time has no money whatever, owing to the deductions which are made from his pay in order that they should be supplied. The result of that is that all the advantages of a soldier's life are discounted. Men who have served in the Army come back and say "It is all very well, but you have to go and buy underwear and every necessary, and the result is that you very often have hardly a penny to yourself," and in consequence you do not get your men. At the present moment the War Office is enlisting young men under the standard in the hopes that they will grow, but I believe that this is one of the difficulties which stand in the way at the present time of recruiting for the Army.

MR. COURTENAY WARNER

I do not mean to press my reduction, but it is not quite fair to say we want to economise in anything. The Government's extravagance has been shown to-night by its keeping a garrison in the most expensive country in the world. If they only kept half the number there which they are keeping and the other half at home, where they could be easily shipped, if required, the saving there would cover the expense of the shirts. It is not such an argument after all, and whatever Government is in power, in the course of some five or six years hence those concessions will have to be given, because, unless they are, you will not get recruits. You not only lose recruits, but you cause ill-feeling, because you profess to give them clothes, and you do not do so, and you only get the credit for deceiving them, and not any result from your beautifully coloured advertisements. They say that is all nonsense; they do not give us the clothes, but only the outside shell; and the men who have been in the Army make them think that the Government will treat them dishonestly. Under these circumstances something will have to be done.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

On the return of the CHAIRMAN after the usual interval—

Motion made, and Question proposed— That a sum, not exceeding £2,531,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Supply and Repair of Warlike and other Stores, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1900.

*SIR C. DILKE

Mr. Lowther, I want to ask a somewhat seeptical question of the representative of the War Office. We are going to some small expense in the equipment of the Artillery with the new quick-firing attachment. This action on the part of this country corresponds with the action which has been taken by foreign Powers, involving them in enormous expense; and the seepticism which I wish to express in my question is as to whether we are so much in advance of other Powers in scientific knowedge that we have succeeded at this very small expense, in securing to ourselves the possession of a weapon which will at least compete with, or stand up against, the altered artillery of foreign Powers. We have some idea, from what we have seen in the newspapers of the vast expenditure to which Russia, Germany, and France have been put for the purpose of completing the change of the old artillery for quickfiring guns, and the change is of so startling a nature that the whole of the Infantry tactics has been changed to correspond with the enormous artillery changes which the quick-firing gun has introduced. It will make a revolution in the whole of the military system of those Powers be apparently have made that revolution by a cheap and easy innovation, with which, I understand, the War Office are satisfied, and which a good many Members of this House have had an opporunity of seeing; and I believe military officers are of opinion that it answers to the change which has involved enormous cost in the case of Continental Powers. I believe that British officers are also of opinion that the change made in the quick-firing attachment is as good as, if not better than, the change made in the German gun. As regards the French gun, I believe it is a secret. All we know is that a quick-firing hydraulic system has been adopted, and that it has involved France in enormous expense. Well, Sir, perhaps the representative of the War Office will be able to tell us whether the military authorities are satisfied with this quick-firing gun which they have adopted; whether they regard this as a tentative experiment; or whether they really look forward to it as a settled system which will compete with the new quick-firing gun obtained by foreign Powers at an enormous price; and whether he can tell us in what time the issue of the new attachment will be completed.

MAJOR RASCH

I desire to congratulate the War Office on their appointment to the post of Director-General of Ordnance Factories. I also desire some information from the Under Secretary with reference to the quick-firing gun which has been alluded to by the right honourable Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean. Is the quick-firing attachment of Sir George Clarke to be permanently adopted by the War Office, or are they going to adopt a different arrangement, and, if so, are they going to put the new batteries in hand?

COLONEL WYNDHAM MURRAY (Bath)

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary for War whether it is the intention to change the system of rifle instruction of the Volunteers, and what the change will be?

*MR. POWELL WILLIAMS

Mr. Lowther, with regard to the quick-firing guns, I have to say that the arrangement which has been described as Sir George Clarke's is one in which an appliance is adopted which will materially increase the rapidity of firing the gun without, it is believed, the necessity of relaying. It entails an expenditure of about £60 per carriage, and the total cost of applying it to the whole of the batteries in the United Kingdom will be something like £100,000. What Lord Lansdowne had to consider was, whether it was desirable, seeng the advantage undoubtedly derived from this new arrangement, to immediately give directions that the whole of the existing horse and field batteries should be converted. Well, Sir, he came to the conclusion that it was desirable to take that course without prejudice to any better invention that might hereafter be submited to him. As a consequence of that policy we shall commence a regular issue next month to the Royal Artillery batteries of gun carriages altered according to this method. There is no material alteration in the gun itself. Well, then, the first answer that I have to give to my right honourable Friend is that probably in the course of the year the whole of the horse and field Artillery will be armed with guns having this new arrangement on the carriage. But this does not end the question.

*SIR C. DILKE

Hear, hear.

*MR. POWELL WILLIAMS

This may or may not be in the result a tentative arrangement. It may be that another invention will altogether supersede what has now been done. In conjunction with this policy the Secretary of State has had under consideration two totally different mechanisms, one designed at the Ordnance Factory and another by a private firm, and he has given directions that a battery fitted with each of these designs shall be prepared and that exhaustive experiments shall be made in order to determine whether or not either of them provides a more efficient weapon than the converted batteries of which I have spoken. Well, Sir, if that should prove to be the case, then on some future occasion some one will, I suppose, have to come to this Table and move a Vote representing the cost of superseding the whole of the existing converted batteries and replacing them by batteries which prove on test to provide better weapons. That is the way the matter stands. It has been found by actual test that the converted battery is an extremely serviceable weapon—indeed a very much more serviceable weapon than the batteries which, now exist—but what is doubtful, after all, is whether it is the best weapon to adopt permanently in the Service. If it is proved that one of the new designs which have been ordered is better than the converted batteries of which I have been speaking, then the question will arise whether or not the Artillery should be armed with new batteries. As the matter now stands I think there is very little doubt, from the information that is in the possession of the War Office, that the converted battery is at least as good as the German battery. As to France there is, as my right honourable Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean says, considerable mystery; but he knows as well as I do that there are rumours that the French are not altogether satisfied with their new guns. The position is this. Our own batteries will be improved to a very considerable degree, probably up to over five rounds a minute, by the conversion, but the inventions which will be tried may give even better results than that. With regard to the musketry instruction for the Volunteers, it is to be altered in the direction of introducing more collective firing. The military authorities are convinced that it is essential that the Volunteers should have much more practice in collective firing, and provision for that purpose will therefore be made.

Motion made, and Question proposed— That a sum, not exceeding £2,530,950, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr.Weir.)

*MR. WEIR

I beg to call attention to the alarming loss of money which has been caused by the imperfect inspection of ammunition, and I move to reduce the Vote by £100.

MR. W. ALLAN (Gateshead)

I have listened to the remarks of the honourable Member the Financial Secretary to the War Office, and I would like to ask a question or two. He has informed the Committee that there is a great amount of money required for the conversion of the artillery, but, at the same time, he also informed the Committee that there was a better system in view, one that would be of greater value, of more accuracy in firing, and possessing all the characteristics of a powerful quick-firing field gun. Now, personally, I think it is a waste of money to begin to convert guns on the system indicated by the honourable Gentleman to the House, and then in a short time to have them discarded. That is practically flinging away money. Would it not be far more sensible and practical to give the superior weapon every fair trial, and then take the best weapon? The Vote for the conversion of guns is £170,510 more than last year. Why spend the money in these conversions, when in the course of twelve months these guns will be discarded in favour of the new gun? It will be an absolute waste of money. There is another point. I notice that £9,850 is taken for Brennan torpedoes. I would like to ask the honourable Gentleman how is this money to be spent? Is it to be spent on torpedoes or on the stations from which the torpedoes are to be fired? I ask the information from a practical point of view.

MR. A. CROSS (Glasgow, Camlachie)

I wish to draw the attention of the honourable Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the War Office to Pegamoid cartridges. I am not sure whether any experiments have been made with them by the War Office. They are now extensively used for sporting purposes, and they possess many advantages. They are waterproof, and can be submerged in water with impunity, and they can be ejected from the breech with as much safety and regularity as brass-lined cartridges.

*MR. POWELL WILLIAMS

I do not know about this particular invention of Pegamoid cartridges, but if my honourable Friend the Member for Camlachie will take the trouble to bring it under the notice of the War Office, I have no doubt steps will be taken to ascertain whether it is suitable to be introduced in Her Majesty's Service in place of the cartridges now used In reference to the remarks of the honourable Member for Gateshead as to the Brennan torpedoes, the £9,850 taken for them represent the cost of manufacturing and supplying these torpedoes.

MR. ALLAN

These torpedoes are not used in the Navy at all. The Brennan torpedo is a shore torpedo.

*MR. POWELL WILLIAMS

The sum of £9,850 taken in the Estimates means that that is the cost of the torpedoes supplied during the year. In regard to the point which the honourable Member took as to whether the scheme of converting the field guns is or is not a good policy, I put it to him that, looking to the fact that it would take experiments extending over twelve months in order to determine whether or not a particular new invention was better than the one tentatively adopted, and looking also to the fact that after you have determined that point, it would take two more years to complete the manufacture of the adopted weapon—I say that the Secretary of State was following a good policy in materially improving the efficiency of the existing Artillery Service at a trifling cost.

*MR. WEIR

What about the £20,000 worth of ammunition which was not rejected on account of imperfect inspection?

*MR. POWELL WILLIAMS

As to the rejected ammunition, this ammunition is scattered all over the face of the globe, and it occasionally happens that through unfavourable conditions of storage the ammunition becomes deteriorated and the gauge is altered. The honourable Member says that the bullet has been rejected. The fact is, that there has been a change in the pattern of the bullet used three or four years ago. The honourable Gentleman has also called attention to the fact that this matter is before the Public Accounts Committee, but I do not think that a case which has been relegated to that Committee should form the subject of discussion here now.

*MR. WEIR

Perhaps the honourable Gentleman will agree to have this Vote postponed on account of insufficient information. I say that this rejec- tion was caused by a gross blunder on the part of the contractor, the inspector, or both. The matter has been commented upon by the Auditor-General. Since we have no information whatever on the subject, the honourable Member had better allow the Vote to stand over until it has been reported on by the Public Accounts Committee.

MR. W. ALLAN

I want an answer to my question. I do not think it right to pass this Vote until we have had some explanation. The honourable Gentleman mentioned to the Committee that the Brennan torpedoes were for the Navy. The honourable Gentleman is wrong, for the Brennan torpedo is not used in the Navy, but is worked from the shore by machinery. I want to know simply how many "Brennan torpedoes, etc."—that "etc." covers perhaps a multitude of sins—are represented by £9,850—£400 more than last year? We have been making Brennan torpedoes for the last ten years, and I want to know something about them.

*MR. POWELL WILLIAMS

Of course I was wrong in stating that these torpedoes were for the Navy—they are land-service torpedoes. I can give the honourable Member no other explanation than that this Estimate is for the cost of the torpedoes demanded for the land service. Let the honourable Member restrain his impetuosity. He asks me as to the number of them provided for by the Vote. He may do a simple calculation himself. I believe the Brennan torpedo costs something like £200, according to size, and a simple division sum will tell him what the number is.

SIR E. GOURLEY (Sunderland)

Is it not the fact that the land torpedoes have been discarded altogether, and that the money which appears on the Estimates is on account of the original sum of £100,000, which was paid for the patents?

MR. CALDWELL (Lanark, Mid)

The Financial Secretary to the War Office has not said why this Vote should not be postponed. This Vote is coming before the Public Accounts Committee, and that is a good reason why it should not be taken now. In fact, there is no particular reason why the Government should have it. When they have got all the money they want and can fall back on the automatic closure, and when the important question involved has been brought before the Public Accounts Committee, I venture to say that the Government will necessarily get the Vote afterwards if the Public Accounts Committee make a report favourable to it. If not, it is the object of the appointment of the Public Accounts Committee that Parliament should give weight to what that Committee may do. To pass this Vote now is to deprive the House of the benefit of the criticism of the Public Accounts Committee on this important question.

MR. MADDISON

I join in the appeal to the Financial Secretary to the War Office not to press this Vote to-night. Some of us have taken a very strong line, and we surely have some evidence of the need of watching very closely the expenditure on the Army. The Report of the Auditor-General, which has been read by my honourable Friend, points out what appears to us to be very serious blundering. Some may say that 20,000 cartridges is a mere trifle, but 20,000 cartridges come to a very large sum of money. Some of us believe very firmly, and we are backed up by very high authority, that this money for the Army comes from the toiling masses of the country, and, at any rate, we have reason to be careful in our criticism as to how the money is spent. The honourable Gentleman has himself given a reason why the Vote should be delayed, and, so far as I am concerned, I think this is a very reasonable appeal to make to the representative of the War Office, and that he will not lose by delaying this Vote. We may be able to get some further information. Whatever else may be in doubt, this is quite clear, that the honourable Gentleman who represents the War Office cannot give us the information we require on this question, as well as on many others.

MR. DAVITT (Mayo, S.)

I wish to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether any of this expenditure will go in the manufacture of Dum-Dum bullets?

*MR. BRODRICK

This question is made under very unusual circumstances. The whole object of the House has always been to take this Vote at the earliest possible moment in the year, for if the first Vote is passed, it enables my honourable Friend to go on with the current expenditure. In regard to the suggestion that because the Public Accounts Committee have got one item which they desire to discuss, that therefore it is a reason why the whole Vote should be postponed—I think that argument is untenable. If the Secretary of State for War has in any way exceeded his powers in any operation, and it is desired to challenge the matter, the ordinary, legitimate, and proper opportunity for discussing a point of that kind is on the salary of the Secretary for War.

HONOURABLE MEMBERS

No, No!

*MR. BRODRICK

I have sat in the House for twenty years, and I have seen that course taken on several occasions. In regard to the point which my honourable Friend has been asked to explain as to a certain amount of ammunition which was rejected, nobody supposes that the rejection of that ammunition is any reason for deferring the whole Vote for warlike stores for the year. All that the House can desire is an opportunity of criticising what may have been done amiss, and that can be done on the salary of the Secretary for War.

DR. CLARK

I can satisfy the right honourable Gentleman that there is a precedent for the course suggested even in the present Session. In one of the Votes preceding this, there were two pensions granted, to which the attention of the House was called by the Auditor-General. The right honourable Gentleman was in the House, and the Leader of the House was present, and the First Lord of the Treasury admitted that a question between the Auditor-General and the War Office was one to be decided by the Public Accounts Committee, and he argued that these pensions were not to be paid until the question at issue had been decided by the Public Accounts Committee. Now, the Auditor-General has reported unfavourably in regard to the system of inspection of ammunition by which 20,000 catridges were passed, and afterwards rejected. The inspectors have not been doing their duty in regard to the materials. I do feel very strongly in regard to this matter. Here you are giving our troops new and improved rifles, but if you allow scamped ammunition to pass inspection, it may have a very serious effect at a very critical moment.

*MR. BRODRICK

But that ought to be discussed on the War Office Vote.

DR. CLARK

We only want to carry out the conditions laid down by the First Lord of the Treasury that nothing will be paid and nothing done until this question has been settled by the Public Accounts Committee. We point to the Auditor-General, who reports on the question very unfavourably. We refer that to the Public Accounts Committee, who are the jury, and all we ask is that the Government should not make these payments until the jury have given their verdict. It we pass this Vote, I do not see how the whole question can be reopened again, if the Public Accounts Committee agree with the Auditor-General on the salary of the honourable Gentleman or that of the Secretary of State for War. All these things come up on special Votes. Until the judge and jury give their verdict, we ought not to give the Vote. I think what we ought to get is some statement from someone in authority that, if the Auditor-General's position is supported by the Public Accounts Committee as to how this bad ammunition was passed by the inspectors, some action will be taken. A certain sum has to be obtained by the Government, and the best way will be to keep back £5 or something from this Vote in order that we may have something else to say about it hereafter.

MR. CALDWELL

I advise the Government that they will not promote the business of Supply by refusing the request that has been made for the postponement of the Vote. We know that if they refuse a request of this kind, not only will their Votes be contested, but the question can also be raised on the Report stage. By postponing the Vote, legitimate opportunity will also be afforded of discussing the matter in the Public Accounts Committee. It was said that this question can be raised on the War Office Vote, but the Chairman will tell the Committee that he has frequently ruled that a question of this kind can only be raised on the specific item, and not on the War Office salaries. Therefore, in the particular case I allude to, it is on this Vote, and this Vote only, that it can be raised, and I do not think the Government will facilitate progress of Supply to-night or any other night if they refuse this request. They do not want this Vote to-night, and they have it in their power to obtain it by automatic closure later. If, therefore, they insist on going on with this Vote, I do not think they will facilitate progress.

*THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

Can the honourable Member show me where the salaries of these inspectors appear in this Vote?

MR. BRODRICK

There is no difference of opinion that this subject should be discussed after the Public Accounts Committee have reported on it.

DR. CLARK

Might I call your attention, Sir, to item 6l, page 9—

*THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

Order, order! If the honourable Member will look at the Vote he will see it applies to harness, saddlery, and accoutrements. There are only five inspectors altogether, and it is obvious that the salaries of the inspectors of ammunition are borne on Vote 1. Therefore, this discussion ought really not to have taken place at all.

*MR. BRODRICK

The position is simply this. What was done by one of these inspectors is now to be considered by the Public Accounts Committee. Surely there will be an opportunity to discuss the matter, not on this Vote, but on the Vote for the salary of the Secretary of State, which the Chairman will probably rule as the proper opportunity on which to question the action of any official whose salary was taken under Vote 1 last year. The First Lord of the Treasury has already, in deference to an appeal from honourable Members opposite, undertaken that the War Office and the Ordnance Votes will not be taken to-night. They will be taken later in the Session, and an opportunity will then be given to challenge this particular subject, if honourable Members deem it necessary. It is quite obvious that it is impossible to-night to postpone this Vote and to undertake not to spend 2½ millions of money in order that honourable Members may challenge the action of some inspector whose salary was taken under Vote 1 last year. It is not reasonable to expect that. I think it might be more regularly raised on another Vote, and that we might be allowed to take this Vote to-night.

*MR. WEIR

I should like to call the attention of the honourable Gentleman to the fact that there is £355,000 set down for inspectors of stores. That is in Vote 9, not Vote 1, which has nothing to do with this question. If we go away from Vote 9 we shall be dished and lose our opportunity for discussing the matter.

MR. ALLAN

I would ask whether the right honourable Gentleman is satisfied that the British Artillery—field and horse—shall consist in future of converted guns.

*MR. BRODRICK

To ask me for my personal opinion on a matter on which I have no technical knowledge is rather a hard thing to do, but I entirely concur with what my honourable Friend has stated.

DR. CLARK

The Vote to which we have been referred is for regimental pay. Am I to understand that the technical examination of ammunition is done by ordinary soldiers? In the old days of black powder that might be so, but perhaps it is the Chemical Department that looks after it now. I should say that inspection ought to be under the Chemical Department, and that no ordinary soldier should be entrusted with it at all. We have now a position exactly analagous to what we had when the Army Estimates were discussed last. The Auditor-General reported that £20,000 worth of ammunition which was passed was afterwards condemned, and that the matter had been referred to the Committee on Public Accounts, and we got a pledge that nothing would be done until the Public Accounts Committee had reported. My honourable Friend has now moved to report progress in order to have this matter reported on, or else to have the Vote postponed altogether. The Government has got nearly all the money it requires, and the rest is of no importance.

MR. CALDWELL

May I point out to the First Lord of the Treasury how the matter stands? It seems that about £20,000 worth of stores have been condemned; and that attention has been called to the unreliability of the inspectors by the Auditor-General. That, as the First Lord of the Treasury will admit, is a very important matter.

*THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

Order, order! As I have already pointed out, the question of inspection does not arise on this Vote, because the salaries of the inspectors are not borne on it. Therefore the question cannot be any longer discussed.

MR. CALDWELL

I have asked that this Vote might be withdrawn for this reason. The Government cannot possibly lose anything by its postponement, because, as the First Lord of the Treasury is aware, the Government have already got all the money they require up to August, and will get far more money to-night than they require, and if this Vote is postponed, it will be included in the automatic closure at the end of the Session, and there will be no delay. What is the use of fighting against the postponement of this Vote when there is no practical object on the part of the Government to be gained.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASDRY

I am sure the honourable Gentleman will not press his objection to this vote. There is a large sum of money to be expended in the course of the present year. To that expenditure no objection has been taken, but objection has been taken to the action of certain inspectors, not in the present year, but in the course of the preceding year, which is alleged to have been unsatisfactory. I think the Committee ought to have full cognisance of any such question which naturally and properly comes before it; but the consideration of it is not on this Vote, but on the War Office Vote, and if the Committee will give us this Vote to-night, as I am sure it will, I will undertake on behalf of the Government that an opportunity will be given to raise this question later.

*MR. WEIR

In view of the statement made by the First Lord of the Treasury, I beg to withdraw my Amendment. Now I wish to draw attention to the next item. It is a sum of £50,000 for the repair of small arms, browning, etc. Last year it was only £42,210. I wish to know why it is necessary to increase the Vote by £7,790. I move to reduce the Vote by £5,000.

*MR. POWELL WILLIAMS

If the reduction is made there will be a smaller number of men employed at Enfield. The item is based on the best estimate that can be formed as to the amount that will be spent on this particular service during the year. It is not a stable item, but varies from year to year.

*MR. WEIR

I am well aware of that. But the honourable Gentleman has not said whether this enormous increase goes to Birmingham or Enfield. My experience is that these repairs are carried out at Birmingham. But in any event I should not feel justified in allowing this Vote to pass without challenging it.

MR. CALDWELL

I must say that no explanation whatever has been given as to why the Vote has been increased. It is no explanation to tell us that the reduction of this Vote will mean less work for the men. Are we then a body of persons whose object is simply to afford employment? Are we not interested in the proper expenditure of this money, and whether it is required for the public interest or not? The honourable Gentleman has not said a single word as to why an increased expenditure is needed this year. If he got his instructions properly from the War Office he ought to know why more money is required. He ought to be able to explain the increase, and I think it is not treating the Committee fairly to say that if we do not vote this money there will be less employment for the men. I think if a Minister cannot tell us what the money is going to be expended for that we are perfectly justified in challenging the Vote.

COLONEL WELBY

I think I can explain the matter to the honourable Gentleman. It is very possible that there has been a larger issue of rifles this year than last year.

MR. COURTENAY WARNER

That may be a sufficient explanation, but we want it from the proper quarter. There has been an enormous increase for small arms and no explanation of any kind has been given. I do not know whether the Financial Secretary can give us any explanation, but if he cannot, I should suggest that we should defer this Vote.

MR. MADDISON

Sir, the position of this discussion has really become farcical when a Minister will not or cannot give us the remotest information with regard to this matter. The honourable and gallant Gentleman comes to his rescue, and gives what may or may not be an adequate explanation. But we cannot accept the explanation from him; we must have it from the Front Bench. I put it to the right honourable Gentleman, and demanded from him an explanation of this large increase, and the only reply we got was that if there was a reduction in this item it would cause a diminution in the number of men employed. We on this side of the House are prepared to face the diminution in the number of men employed if you agree to the reduction. Are you prepared to defend this increase on the ground that it will cause more men to be employed. We shall be obliged to vote for the reduction unless we get in plain terms a reason which will satisfy us as the representatives of our constituencies. We cannot treat these thousands of pounds in the airy way in which they are dealt with by the honourable Gentleman. What is our duty in this House? As everyone knows, when Ministers refuse to give us a reason for any expenditure—what is our duty, our function, where does that go to? Are we here as mere mechanical voting machines? Are we to take on faith the policy of these Estimates? The honourable Gentleman took a firm stand to-night on a certain question, and we backed him up to the best of our ability; but now he has departed from that position, and he simply tells us we must give the Vote or throw British workmen out of employment. But they do not want to be employed unless there is a need for it. And the honourable Gentleman gives us no explanation whatever.

*MR. POWELL WILLIAMS

I have no explanation to give. I know all about it and the honourable Gentleman knows all about it. What is there lacking in the way of explanation? We know that the original rifle has been a little longer in the hands of the troops, and the longer they are in their hands the greater is the repair that is necessary. Therefore, we come to the House and ask the House to provide for those repairs. In regard to the additional charge for new rifles to which the honourable Gentleman referred, the House sanctioned, two years ago, a considerable addition to the Army, amounting, when it was completed, to 25,000 or 26,000 men. That means that additional rifles are required to put arms into the hands of these new soldiers. The House knows that they are not all raised; some are and some are not, and, as they are raised, you must have rifles for them. I hope that is a reasonable explanation and that honourable Members will accept it.

MR. CALDWELL

I must say that is not by any means a reasonable explanation. The honourable Gentleman knows perfectly well that last year there were in the rank and file as many men as you expect to have this year; the number would not seem to be much greater one year than the other. I think we ought to have some explanation, for, so far as I can see, we have not had any at all. I hope my honourable Friend will go to a Division.

CAPTAIN SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD

I must congratulate the other side of the House on the number of aspirants they have for the post of Secretary for War. I am glad to see they take this interest in military matters. Speaking as an old soldier, I am perfectly satisfied with the explanation of my honourable Friend, and I think all other military men in this House will also be satisfied. I hope the honourable Member will go to a Division, and if he does, I am certain that all those who sit upon this side of the House will vote against him.

MR. GODDARD (Ipswich)

With regard to whether we should challenge this Vote, I may point out that we were distinctly challenged in this direction. We are told we voted for these sums of money and we were not the men to find them. What we complain of is that when we ask for an explanation for such an excessive charge as £8,000, the explanation given us is so very unsatisfactory. It is only right to challenge this amount; we are bound to do so.

MR. POWER (Waterford, E.)

My honourable Friend the Member for South Mayo asked whether any expenditure was connected with the manufacture of Dum-Dum bullets. We have no explanation in this Vote as to whether they are made in England or elsewhere.

*MR. POWELL WILLIAMS

In answer to the honourable Gentleman I said—

MR. POWER

You shock your head, which is not good Parliamentary language.

*MR. POWELL WILLIAMS

That no Dum-Dum bullets were made here, and that they were not included in this Vote.

*MR. WEIR

The honourable Gentleman dealt with the repairs, and it was pointed out by an honourable Member on the other side that that included the manufacture of millions of spare parts. It is quite possible that next year you may make a smaller number of spare parts.

Motion made, and Question put— That a sum, not exceeding £2,526,000, be granted for the said service.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 53; Noes 130.—(Division List No. 89.)

AYES.
Allan, William (Gateshead)	Hazell, Walter	Richardson, J. (Durham)
Allen, W.(Newc.-under-Lyme	Hogan, James Francis	Rickett, J. Compton
Asher, Alexander	Hutton, A. E. (Morley)	Robertson, E. (Dundee)
Austin, Sir J. (Yorkshire)	Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)	Shaw, T. (Hawick B.)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. J. B.(Clackm.	Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U.	Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)
Barlow, J. Emmott	Kinloch, Sir John G. Smyth	Strachey, Edward
Buchanan, T. Ryburn	Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)	Sullivan, D. (Westmeath)
Burt, Thomas	Macaleese, Daniel	Ure, Alexander
Carmichael, Sir T.D. Gibson-	M'Arthur, W. (Cornwall)	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Channing, Francis Allston	M'Ghee, Richard	Warner, T. Courtenay
Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness.-sh.	Maddison, Fred	Whittaker, T. Palmer
Davitt, Michael	Mendl. Sigismund Ferdinand	Williams, J. Carvell (Notts.)
Dillon, John	Molloy, Bernard Charles	Wilson, John (Govan)
Dunn, Sir William	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Wilson, J.H. (Middlesbrough)
Farquharson, Dr. Robert	Oldroyd, Mark	Yoxall, James Henry
Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)	Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)
Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)	Pirie, Duncan V.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES Mr. Weir and Mr. Caldwell.
Goddard, Daniel Ford	Power, Patrick Joseph
Gourley, Sir E. Temperley	Reckitt, Harold James
NOES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.	Butcher, John George	Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne
Allhusen, A. Henry Eden	Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward	Fisher, William Hayes
Atkinson Rt. Hon. J.	Cayzer, Sir C. William	FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-
Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy	Cecil, E. (Hertford, E.)	Folkestone, Viscount
Baird, J. G. Alexander	Charrington, Spencer	Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)
Balcarres, Lord	Coghill, Douglas Harry	Fry, Lewis
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J.(Manch'r)	Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Garfit, William
Bafour, Rt. Hn. G.W.(Leeds)	Cornwallis, F. Stanley W.	Gedge, Sydney
Banbury, Fredk. George	Cox, I. Edward B. (Harrow)	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.
Barnes, Frederic Gorrell	Cross, Alex. (Glasgow)	Goschen, Rt Hn G.J.(St Geo.'s)
Bartley, George C. T.	Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Goulding, Edw. Alfred
Barton, Dunbar Plunket	Denny, Colonel	Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)
Bathurst, Hon. A. Benjamin	Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.	Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)
Beach, Rt. Hn Sir M.H.(Bristol)	Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles	Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.
Bentinck, Lord Henry C.	Doughty, George	Gull, Sir Cameron
Bethell, Commander	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Haldane, Richard Burdon
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.	Hare, Thomas Leigh
Bolton, Thomas Dolling	Elliot, Hon. A. R. Douglas	Henderson, Alexander
Brassey, Abert	Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward	Howell, Wm. Tudor
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. J.	Finch, George H.	Hozier, Hon. J. H. Cecil
Hutton, J. (Yorks. N.R.)	Murray, C. J. (Coventry)	Stanley, Edw. J. (Somerset)
Jackson, Rt. Hon. W. Lawies	Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)	Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Jebb, R. Claverhouse	Nicholson, Wm. Graham	Strauss, Arthur
Jessel, Capt. Herbt. Merton	Nicol, Donald Ninian	Strutt, Hon. C. Hedley
Johnston, Wm. (Belfast)	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Sutherland, Sir Thomas
Kenyon-Slaney, Col. Wm.	Orr-Ewing, Chas. Lindsay	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Laurie, Lieut.-General	Pease, H. Pike ((Darlington)	Talbot, Rt Hn J.G. (Oxf'd Univ.
Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn-	Pierpoint, Robert	Thorburn, Walter
Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks.)	Pilkington, Richard	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. E. H.	Pollock, Harry Frederick	Tritton, Charles Ernest
Leigh-Bennett, H. Currie	Purvis, Robert	Valentia, Viscount
Lockwod, Lt.-Col. A. R.	Rasch, Major Frederic C.	Webster, R G. (St. Pancras)
Loder, Gerald W. Erskine	Richards, Henry Chas.	Webster, Sir R. E. (I.of W.)
Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)	Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.	Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.
Lopes, H. Yarde Buller	Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.	Whitmore, Chas. Algernon
Lowe, Francis William	Russell, Gen. F.S. (Cheltenham)	Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)
Lowles, John	Russell, T.W. (Tyrone)	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R.(Bath)
M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)	Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Macartney, W. G. Ellison	Sassoon, Sir Edward A.	Wyndham-Quin, Major W.H.
Macdona, J. Cumming	Seely, Charles Hilton	Young, Com. (Berks, E.)
Middlemore, J. Throgmorton	Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.)
Morrell, George Herbert	Simeon, Sir Barrington	TELLERS FOR THE NOES-Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther
Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)	Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Mount, William George	Smith, A. H. (Christchurch)
Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)	Smith, Hon. W.F.D.(Strand)

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

DR. CLARK

I should like to have some explanation from the Admiralty as to the increase in the item for boats and vessels, from £34,000 to £58,000.

MR. BRODRICK

Some of it is due to work done by our own vessels in the way of transports, but it is mainly due to the work done by hired transports. I think that explanation will be satisfactory to the honourable Gentleman.

MR. HAVELOCK WILSON (Middlesbrough)

Might I ask the honourable Gentleman what ships were employed for hired transport last year, and what was paid for them?

MR. BRODRICK

The hired transport was paid out of the Vote for ships—that is to say, the transport of stores. I call that transport.

MR. GODDARD

Might I ask for some explanation as to miscellaneous stores?

MR. BRODRICK

That is for supplies to all parts of the world, and to our storehouses themselves when they have got their stock down below the normal amount. When stock-taking takes place, and it is found that the stock has run down, it is necessary to replace it. Naval stores are a valuable entity, and contain a large number of other stores.

MR. BUCHANAN

There is one thing which I wish to call attention to upon this Vote, and that is, that this Vote does not give the exact amount which is required during the current year, and that will involve taking money from the Supplementary Estimates. The Financial Secretary to the War Office states, at page 60 of the Estimates, where he gives the net total of the Army Estimates for 1899–1900, that the two Estimates ought to be so much more, and ought to include an extra sum of £20,000 for stores. He further explains that the real amount on the Vote for stores does not appear in the Estimates, but in an amount taken in the Supplementary Estimates taken before the 31st of March this year. It is unfortunately becoming a very common practice, and it leads to confusion, to take the Estimates on from one year to another. I trust that we shall have an assurance from the honourable Gentleman the Secretary to the War Office that it shall not become the regular practice, and that if possible it shall in the future be discontinued, so that when the Army Estimates come on for discussion next year we shall have the real amount of Votes before us, and shall not be compelled to refer to the Estimates of the preceding year.

*MR. POWELL WILLIAMS

The honourable Gentleman called the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to that subject, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer assured the honourable Gentleman that the matter would receive his consideration. I think I ought to say with regard to the question of the increase of rifles, that it was considered desirable that certain particular purchases should be made in respect of that increase, so that when the men were enrolled we might have the arms to put into their hands. Taking the Estimates of the last two years, the increase in this Vote will be found to be more apparent than real. The Vote is very much the same as it was in the year when the change first occurred. My honourable Friend may rest assured that there will be little need to have recourse to the system in future.

SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH (Lancs.,) Clitheroe

The honourable Gentleman has not only shown a strong inclination against this growing practice of bringing in Supplemental Estimates in relief of the current year's expenditure, but he has brought to the attention of the Committee what must be the ultimate result of such a practice. A good many of the inquiries addressed to honourable Members of the Government would be unnecessary if we could compare one year's expenditure with another by means of these Estimates. I am glad to hear that the existing system of presenting the account for warlike clothing and stores will be discontinued, for it is very misleading, and utterly defeats the proper control of Parliament over those accounts.

Resolutions to be reported.

Motion made, and Question proposed— That a sum, not exceeding £305,800, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Pay, etc., of the Medical Establishment, and for Medicines, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1900.

DR. CLARK

There is one thing upon which I should like to have some information. Why has so much been put down for civilian medical attendance last year? Last year the noble Lord the Secretary of State for War issued a very valuable warrant carrying out the reforms required by the medical profession and conceding the demands which had been made by the Medical Department, and, as I thought, the boycott against the Army by the medical profession was last year removed. The present estimate is as large as that of last year, when we could not get enough medical men to fill the positions. The civilian medical man does not get the peculiar training that the regimental medical man obtains at the Netley Hospital, and the result is seen in the very sad case which I had the honour to bring to the attention of the Committee recently, where, owing to the young civilian medical man not having the proper training, he treated a young man as a malingerer, and the poor fellow died two hours afterwards. He thought he was shamming. I had hoped that under the new conditions you would have got better men, and would not have required so many civilian medical officers. In the Eastern district you have a fairly efficient staff, but in the neighbouring districts you are paying a very large sum for outside medical assistance. I thought that under the new conditions, which have given satisfaction to the medical profession, and for which they are grateful to the Secretary of State for War, more military doctors would have been available. I should like to know how things are going on, whether we are able to get sufficient candidates, and to what extent we are depending on outside aid.

*MR. POWELL WILLIAMS

I am glad to say that things are going on better than, before. We are now able to get two candidates for each vacancy that we announce; and it is clear, therefore, that the action which has been taken by the Secretary of State is going to have the desired effect.

COLONEL WELBY

The reduction which stands in my name is intended to draw attention to the organisation of this department of the Army, and I believe it is in the organisation that a great deal of the difficulty is caused to which the honourable Member for Gateshead referred. I would point out to the honourable Member that there must always be a certain number of civilian practitioners employed where regiments are broken up in small detachments; and I agree with him that there are too many employed at regimental head- quarters. One of the advantages of the old system, under which the medical officer was attached to a regiment, is that the doctor gets to know his men and to understand their constitutions. Under the present system there is no opportunity of this, and the result must be to take much of the interest out of the work of the medical officer, while the disadvantages for the non-commissioned officers and men are very great. I had a case in my own regiment of a sergeant major suffering from aneurism of the heart, who was attended by six different medical men in 10 days, and this was no new experience. What chance can a patient have when he receives such treatment? This would not matter in common cases which arise from drink and other causes, but when you have a case like the one to which I have referred I think it is a very serious matter. The men themselves feel that they never have a chance, and the consequence is that when invalided into the country they tell everyone that had they been treated properly by the regimental doctor they would have been considerably better. A curious thing is that we treat the horses of the Army with more consideration, the veterinary surgeons not being shifted about in the same way that the medical officers are. It is perfectly well known that a veterinary surgeon permanently attached to a regiment can treat the horses better, and keep them freer from disease. It is very easy to criticise, and I shall be told that it is difficult to suggest a remedy. One remedy suggested is that a senior medical officer should be treated differently to the juniors, and that a senior medical officer should be attached to every regiment in the Service. The junior medical officers could then undergo any training necessary for their efficiency. Another remedy is one which will, I am afraid, require change, of organisation—namely, that regiments should be grouped into brigades. If a brigade move about the country as a, complete unit, it will then be possible to attach medical officers to each, who would get to know the men under their charge. The Army would then not only be more efficient, but the men would be more contented, and it would be infinitely easier to get recruits.

DR. FARQUHARSON

I have listened with great interest, and with considerable sympathy, to the speech of my honourable and gallant Friend, but I would remind him we are now in a different position to what we were two years ago. At the earnest desire of the Army medical officers themselves, they have been made into a Royal Corps, and the condition of their service has been completely changed. I very much doubt whether it would be possible now to introduce the old regimental system. Moreover, the Financial Secretary to the War Office will no doubt tell us that to return to the old regimental system would cost at least £55,000. Whether the change would be worth that I do not know. I tender to the noble Marquess, the Secretary of State for War, my cordial thanks for having brought about this change, which. I hope will be of great benefit to the Service at large, and to the medical profession in particular. I am very glad to hear that the change is popular amongst medical men, and that better men are now coming forward than in the past. I gladly recognise that the system of nomination from medical schools has drafted into the medical service some of the best men from the medical schools. There is one other point to which I wish to draw the attention of the Committee. The honourable and gallant Member for the West Newington Division has referred on one or two occasions to the accommodation for conveying the sick and wounded from India and the Colonies. I have been asked by the British Medical Association to urge the necessity for having a permanent hospital ship for this purpose, especially when we remember that there are 200 wounded and sick officers and 2,500 wounded and sick men brought back from India and the Colonies every year.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

I do not think that is a question that can be raised on this Vote. If raised at all it should be on the Transport Vote.

*MR. PIRIE

I entirely agree with my honourable and gallant Friend the Member for Taunton, as regards the advisability, if possible, of encouraging the old practice of regimental medical officers, but at the same time I am not blind to the great difficulties which have got to be encountered. I think it necessary to remind honourable Members that the Army does rot exist for the medical service, but the medical service for the Army. Of course, we must give way to prejudices which medical men have, and encourage them to come forward as candidates for the medical service, but it must be distinctly understood that the interests of the Royal Army Medical Corps must be subservient to the welfare of the soldiers and the British Army. Unless that could be carried out you might as well not have Medical Departments at all. In my experience the case of the sergeant-major of the Scots Greys is not a solitary one by any means, but occurs very frequently. Men continually complain of the constant change in the medical officer to which they are subjected in hospital, and I think the fact that the attention of the Committee has been called to this practice ought to be sufficient to secure its abolition. I should like to have some information with regard to the convalescent homes which have been promised for the Army, and to know how many men they will accommodate, and where they will be situated. The utmost credit is due to my honourable and gallant Friend the Member for West Newington who has done so much to procure this great boon for the soldier, and I am surprised that such a long time has elapsed before the Army is provided with such a necessary adjunct, and I hope the Financial Secretary will be able to give the Committee some information on this important point.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

I do not think this is in order on this Vote. It would be more properly raised on some Works Vote.

MR. PIRIE

With all due respect, Mr. Lowther, I fail to understand how these convalescent homes can be started without some increase to the medical establishment, and therefore I thought it would be in order to raise this question now. However, if it can be brought up on another Vote, I shall be glad to call attention to it.

DR. CLARK

I should like to know why the Medical Report for 1898 is not in the hands of honourable Member. I also wish to know whether the Department has favourably considered the very important Report of the principal medical officer at the Cape with regard to barracks. It discloses a very unsatisfactory condition of things. The barracks in South Africa, for instance, are not such as we should spend any more money upon unless we can bring about serious changes. Owing to the condition of the barracks there has been a great deal of discontent and suffering on the part of the men. There is no proper drainage, and enteric fever and other diseases have been prevalent. The water supply should be filtered. In the dry season the supply is so scarce that it has to be supplemented by well water. The medical officers have reported strongly against the re-occupation of these old stations, and I cannot understand why on earth they have been again used.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

I do not think the state of the barracks can be discussed on this Vote.

*MR. POWELL WILLIAMS

No doubt the sites of the barracks are not ideal sites, and that there are many disadvantages, but I—

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

I have just ruled that a discussion upon the state of the barracks could not take place on this Vote.

*MR. POWELL WILLIAMS

I was about to reply to the remarks of the honourable Member with regard to the sanitary arrangements, but will not do so as you have ruled the discussion out of order.

*CAPTAIN NORTON (Newington, W.)

I desire to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office what steps, if any, have been taken to improve the nursing arrangements in connection with the sick and wounded of the Army. Not long ago I had occasion to bring before the House the shocking state of affairs which occurred in the late Soudan campaign. I am sorry to be obliged to go to some extent over the whole ground, but I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that after the battle of Omdurman 1,080 men were laid up in hospital at Alexandria and Cairo with only 10 trained hospital nurses to attend them. The excuse offered by the Under Secretary for War was that there were a certain number of what he designated as male nurses. These male nurses consist of men of the Royal Army Hospital Corps, who get a preliminary training which extends over six weeks only. There is no comparison between hospital nurses, who go through a long course of training, and these male nurses. We find that for the whole British Division there were only 10 nurses to 1,080 men who, through deficient transport, were detained at Alexandria and Cairo for over four weeks. Seventy men suffering from enteric fever had only two nurses to look after them, and the death rate, instead of being 5 per cent. was 10 per cent. One hundred and four of these died, but how many more succumbed in consequence of insufficient nursing upon the voyage home is not known. Of the battalion of Grenadier Guards which came home, no fewer than 100 went into hospital in London and seven died. It may be said that we have an insufficient supply of trained nurses, but in cases of emergency there are a number of reserve nurses who can be called upon. My belief is that sufficient nurses were not forthcoming owing to a wretched petty economy. I wish to enter my protest in order that in future expeditions there may be no cheeseparing in this matter, with consequent suffering and loss of life. I shall, therefore, be glad to know that we have a sufficient staff of trained army nurses, and that, if we have not, the matter will be attended to, so that in future campaigns our soldiers shall not be left to the mercy of hospital orderlies.

MR. PIRIE

I know it is the general opinion of the country that the War Office has been guilty of a false and petty economy, and I think we should have some information from the Financial Secretary on the subject. Some remarkable letters have appeared in "The Times," from an officer of great authority, which showed up the condition of affairs in the most glaring way. It is a matter which the Committee ought not to pass over without explanation.

*MR. POWELL WILLIAMS

It has already been pointed out that in a great number of cases, especially under the conditions prevailing in the Soudan, it would almost be impossible to employ female nurses. It is partly a military and partly a medical matter, but I do not think there is any difference between the two authorities on the subject. Under the conditions that prevail at home, undoubtedly female nurses serve the purpose better than male nurses. Under the conditions that prevail at Cairo, I am told that that is certainly not the case, and that the advantages of employing male nurses in those cases are very manifest. The men attached to the Army Medical Staff are described as hospital orderlies, but in a very large number of cases they are trained nurses.

*SIR W. FOSTER (Derbyshire, Ilkeston)

I regard the explanation given by the Financial Secretary to the War Office as very unsatisfactory. We should not tolerate the condition of things to which attention has been called in any civil hospital in this country, and it is a condition of things that does not reflect credit on the general administration of the Army. It was a foolish and petty economy which brought about such a state of things, and I hope we shall have no repetition of it in any future campaign.

Motion made, and Question put— That a sum, not exceeding £305,700, be granted for the said Service."—(Captain Norton.)

*CAPTAIN NORTON

Might I point out that the state of affairs was far worse than I represented. The hospitals at Alexandria and Cairo were so over-crowded that they were obliged to pitch tents in the vicinity of the hospitals—the very worst place possible. Moreover, the tents were not even what are known as field hospital tents, but were ordinary tents, the proper tents being in store. The Royal Army Medical Department are in no way to blame for this. They condemned the proceedings which compelled them to pay attention to the sick without having proper medical appliances at their command. The Army Medical Department asked that they might have a hospital ship sent to Alexandria, so that in the event of there being a large number of troops coming down from the front, as they knew there would be in consequence of bad water and the hardships of campaign, they would have the staff which necessarily accompanies the hospital ship to draw upon in case of need, and in order to enable them to cope with the demand which was made upon them at Cairo and Alexandria. As a protest against the mismanagement in this matter, I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £100.

DR. CLARK

The responsibility for what has occurred does not rest with the

Medical Department, who asked for all that was necessry, but their demands were refused. Typhoid fever is a disease in which efficient nursing is everything. Skilled nursing will bring a man through, but without it he will die, no matter what the medical man may do for him. Male nurses are not specially trained to deal with these cases.

Question put— That a sum not exceeding £305,700 be granted for the said service.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 39; Noes 102.—(Division List No. 90.)

AYES.
Allhusen, A. Henry Eden	Haldane, Richard Burdon	Sullivan, D. (Westmeath)
Asher, Alexander	Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Scale-	Trevelyan, Chas. Philips
Balfour, Rt. Hn. J. B.(Clackm.	Hutton, A. E. (Morley)	Ure, Alexander
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Lambert, George	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Caldwell, James	Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)	Warner, T. Courtenay T.
Channing, Francis Allston	Macaleese, Daniel	Weir, James Galloway
Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.)	M'Arthur, W. (Cornwall)	Weir, James Galloway
Clough, Walter Owen	M'Ghee, Richard	Wilson, John (Govan)
Davitt, Michael	Maddison, Fred.	Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Chas.	Oldroyd, Mark
Dillon, John	Pease, J. A. (Northumb.)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES Captain Norton and Mr. Pirie.
Duncombe, Hon. H.V.	Power, Patrick Joseph
Dunn, Sir William	Reckitt, Harold James
Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)	Shaw, T. (Hawick B.)
Goddard, Daniel Ford	Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)
NOES.
Acland-Hood, Capt.Sir A. F.	Denny, Colonel	Loder, Gerald W. Erskine
Ashmead Bartlett, Sir E.	Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.	Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)
Atkinson, Rt. Hon J.	Doughty, George	Lopes, H. Yarde Buller
Balcarres, Lord	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Lowe, Francis William
Balfour,Rt.Hn.A.J.(Manch'r)	Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward	Macartney, W. G. Eliison
Balfour, Rt. Hn.G.W.(Leeds)	Finch, George H.	Macdona, J. Cumming
Banbury, Fredk. George	Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne	M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)
Barton, Dunbar Plunket	Fisher, William Hayes	Middlemore, J. Throgmorton
Beach,Rt.HnSirM.H.(Bristol)	FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-	Morrell, George Herbert
Beckett, Ernest William	Folkestone, Viscount	Mount, William George
Bentinck Lord Henry C.	Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)	Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)
Beresford, Lord Charles	Fry. Lewis	Murray, C. J. (Coventry)
Bethell, Commander	Garfit, William	Murray,Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Gedge, Sydney	Nicholson, Wm. Graham
Brassey, Abert	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.	Nicol, Donald Ninian
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. J.	Goschen,RtHnG.J.(StGeo.'s)	Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S.
Butcher, John George	Gray, Ernest (West Ham)	Orr-Ewing, Chas. Lindsay
Cavendish,V.C.W.(Derbysh.)	Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)	Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)
Cayzer, Sir C. William	Gull, Sir Cameron	Pierpoint, Robert
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Hare, Thomas Leigh	Pilkington, Richard
Charrington, Spencer	Henderson, Alexander	Pellock, Harry Frederick
Coghill, Douglas Harry	Jessel, Capt. Herbt. Merton	Purvis, Robert
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Johnston, Wm. (Belfast)	Rasch, Major Frederic C.
Compton, Lord Alwyne	Kenyon-Slaney, Col. Wm	Richards, Henry Chas
Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)	Lawrence,SirE Durning-(Corn-	Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.
Cornwallis, F. Stanley W.	Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks.)	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Cox, I. Edward B. (Harrow)	Leigh-Bennett, H. Currie	Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.
Da'rymple, Sir Charl s	Lockwood, Lt-Col. A R.	Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Sassoon, Sir Edward A.	Talbot, RtHnJ.G.(OxfdUniv.	Wyndham-Quin, Major W.H.
Seely, Charles Hilton	Tritton, Charles Ernest	Young, Com. (Berks, E.)
Smith, Hon. W.F.D. (Strand)	Valentia, Viscount
Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)	Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther
Strauss, Arthur	Webster, Sir R. E. (I.of W.)
Strutt, Hon. C. Hedley	Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.
Sutherland, Sir Thomas	Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)
Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Resolutions agreed to.

Original Question again proposed.

Debate arising;

And, it being after Midnight, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee also report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

The House resumed—