§ 1. "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 488 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."
§ 2. "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."
§ 3. "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."
489§ 4. "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."
§ Resolutions read a second time.
§
Amendment proposed to the First Resolution—
To leave out '£1,211,900' and insert '£1,191,900,' instead thereof."—(Mr. Dillon.)
§ MR. DILLONsaid he desired to move the reduction of this Vote by £20,000 in respect of the sum which was asked for to complete the accommodation for the increased garrison in South Africa. The subject was raised on Friday last and Debated for some time in Committee, but no satisfactory explanation was given as to the cause of the increased garrison or whether it was intended to be a permanent increase. No satisfactory explanation had been given as to the locality in which the money was to be spent. The stun of £129,600 had already been voted, and £22,400 was now asked for to complete that sum. He felt it his duty to take this opportunity of protesting against this Vote, because it appeared to him that the House of Commons was called upon to acquiesce in an immense permanent increase in the military garrison in South Africa. Why was so large an increase required? It appeared to him that the policy of increasing their garrison from 3,000 to upwards of 9,000 men, at which figure it stood at the present moment, was a policy calculated to create and maintain irritation in that country, and to increase the likelihood of disturbance and, possibly, of war. It was to him a great question of principle, which the House should not agree to without protest. The sum of £129,600 had already been voted, and they were now called upon to vote £22,400 as a further sum. That made a total of £152,000, and yet the total estimated cost of the works was only £150.200. Under the circumstances why were they asked to vote £152,000? It seemed to him that the Estimates were prepared in a slipshod fashion, and he should like some explanation from the Colonial Secretary.
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIESThe honourable Member has raised some question of detail in this Estimate, and he has also raised a question of principle to which I may be permitted to reply. He asks where this expenditure is to take place? This money is for the establishment of appropriate accommodation for the troops for the different garrisons in South Africa. Assuming that the principle accepted by the House that it is desirable to increase the garrison in South Africa, I think there will be no difficulty whatever in inducing the House to provide proper accommodation for the troops in such a way that their health and comfort may be secured without erecting more permanent buildings than at present exist. So far as the detail of the objection is concerned, I do not think the honourable Member attaches much weight to it. As far as the principle of the honourable Member's objection is concerned, I hardly think I am entitled to consider the honourable Member as a representative of the interests of the United Kingdom. I do not think the honourable Member will accept such a character, for he and one or two other Members from Ireland, unfortunately, in the case of any possible difficulties which may occur between this country and any foreign country, and even barbarous chiefs, were inclined to accept the position of advocate of the foreign country or the barbarous chiefs rather than of the United Kingdom. The honourable Member asked why it was necessary to increase the permanent garrison in South Africa, which, as he correctly states, was some few years ago between 3,000 and 4,000 men. I hope that upon this point I shall give an answer which will be satisfactory to the majority of the House. It was part of the general principle on which Her Majesty's Government thought it to be their duty to defend the possessions of Her Majesty against possible attacks. Those steps are regulated by the proceedings of other countries. If any other country should feel it necessary to increase its navy, we increased our Navy in proportion, on purely defensive principles and on the assumption that we are bound to maintain a certain proportion between the forces of this country and those of other countries. Fortunately that concludes Her Majesty's obligations with regard to 491 most of her possessions, as they are of an insular character and could be defended by the Navy. In the case of Africa, where we had a land frontier, the same principle obtains with regard to the land forces, and if our neighbours increase their military preparations we are bound also to increase ours. Let me take an illustration. It is only an illustration, because, fortunately, the hypothesis has net arisen and is not likely to arise. For instance, suppose the French Government, in the exercise of its discretion, thought it necessary to send large forces to Dahomey, we might think it necessary to increase our forces at Lagos. The Transvaal Republic, which borders both on the Colony of Natal and Cape Colony, has enormously increased their offensive or defensive forces within the last few years. It is within the knowledge of every Member of the House that they have spent enormous sums in forts, artillery, and rifles, and millions of cartridges have been imported. In these circumstances, what we considered a sufficient defensive force in previous years has become totally insufficient now under the altered circumstances. That is the sole reason—it is a necessity imposed upon us, and one which I think the House will recognise—for the increase of the garrison, and it is an increase which the Government must insist upon so long as they have the responsibility for the peace of South Africa.
*MR. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire, Eifion)congratulated the right honourable Gentleman upon the fact that he had been able to make the assertion with a grave face that the precautions taken by the Transvaal Government bad been taken possibly with a view of invading British territory. The right honourable Gentleman appeared to have forgotten the fact that a raid had been made by English troops on the Transvaal, and in consequence the greatest antagonism was excited. The right honourable Gentleman appeared to harbour the idea of forcing a conflict with the Transvaal with the view of annexing that country. He did not think that anyone in that House believed that there was the slightest intention on the part of the Transvaal Government to make any raid into English territory. Under the guidance of 492 the right honourable Gentleman they were constantly nagging at President Kruger and interfering with the internal relations of the Transvaal, with which they had nothing to do, for the Transvaal was as independent of England in its internal relations as. Russia was so far as international rights were concerned.
§ MR. BUCHANAN (Aberdeenshire, E.)thought the speech just delivered by the Secretary for the Colonies was very different both in substance, tone, and temper from that which was delivered by the First Lord of the Treasury on the same subject last Friday, when it was stated that their forces in South Africa were mainly for the purpose of defending their coaling stations. The military forces in South Africa were continuously increasing, and had done ever since the right honourable Gentleman accepted the office of Colonial Secretary. If this country was going to engage in a competition with the military strength of other great Powers, either in Africa or elsewhere, he thought that was a very serious prospect for this country.
§ MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)said the Colonial Secretary had followed up defiant action by a defiant speech. It was perfectly true that the Transvaal only had recourse to defensive measures after a most scandalous and outrageous raid had been made upon their country. He did not suppose that the right honourable Gentleman himself would ever dream that President Kruger, if not attacked, would think of marching on Cape Colony or Natal. When the Treaty between England and the Transvaal was signed, Lord Stanley, who was then Minister for Foreign Affairs, wrote a letter to the negotiators, in which he said that we must prevent the Transvaal Government from making treaties with Foreign Powers without our consent, but in everything else England had nothing to do with the Transvaal. Now the right honourable Gentleman had laid it down as a sort of law that wherever a country whose frontier marched with that of England increased its army there we should send a similar number of troops and do the same thing. They knew that the Russians were going to increase their army in Manchuria. Did the right 493 honourable Gentleman propose to increase our army in China and make it equal to that of the Russians in Manchuria? That declaration of policy on the part of the right honourable Gentleman, if carried out, would be perfectly ruinous to this country. Why should those troops in South Africa be maintained at the cost of the British taxpayer? They did not do, this sort of thing in Canada, and why should they make this distinction in Cape Colony? The Secretary for the Colonies had threatened that if President Kruger increased his defensive power he would increase the garrison in South Africa. He was sorry that the Leader of the Opposition was not in his place, for if he had been he felt perfectly sure that he would have renewed his vote against this attempt to establish a, permanent garrison in. South Africa. He did not think that they should be called upon to maintain such an army in a self-governing Colony, and he thought the Members on the Opposition side were bound to follow his honourable Friend into the Lobby.
§ MR. BROADHURSTsaid he did not often intervene in that class of business, but the speech of the Colonial Secretary was of such an alarming character that he thought the Debate ought to be adjourned until some more responsible persons on this side of the House were present to deal with it. The right honourable Gentleman had practically stated that they should put man for Man whatever France or any other Power having possessions in. Africa thought proper to place in that country. Supposing Germany or France sent 150,000 men, where was this country going to find that number? He never heard anything more alarming, and a reduction in their expenditure was perfectly hopeless if that sort of thing went on. The Government, of the Transvaal would be wanting in their public duty if they did not take steps to defend themselves against invasion, especially bearing mind the buccaneering raid made into their territory not long ago, which had never been reprimanded properly by the Government of this country. There was 494 on justification whatever for Great Britain to keep such a large Army in South Africa, and he should go into the Division Lobby against this Vote.
§ Dn. CLARK (Caithness)contended that the sites for the military buildings in South Africa, viewed either from a sanitary or a military standpoint, were the worst that could possibly be conceived. Now, what had the Transvaal Government done in the direction of defending their country? They had put additional forts in Pretoria and Johannesburg, where there was a very turbulent population. They had also, in consequence of the last raid made by British troops into, their country, imported new rifles and a certain amount of ammunition. England raided their country in 1848 and in 1871, and in 1896 there was another semi-official raid. Upon each occasion the Boers were unprotected and unprepared, and how could they be blamed now for taking steps to protect their country against any future invasion. As to the sites for the military buildings, there were plenty of splendid plateaux in South Africa, from 2,000 to, 4,000 feet where the troops could live free from disease, and under conditions, that would be in every way satisfactory. He supposed that it was no use saying anything more about this policy, for they were going to pay that money and place an extra, burden upon the country because it pleased the right honourable Gentleman to carry on this policy of irritation which he had pursued almost from the time when he came into office. Had he adopted, instead of this policy, a more friendly attitude, he believed that all the questions at issue between the Transvaal and this country could have been settled. England had never yet undone the wrong which was done by the raid of 1873, for they had never yet given back to the Boers the rights which were then taken away from them. They heard on Friday night last from the First Lord of the Treasury that this was simply a policy of defending their coaling stations, but now they had received practically the real reason from the Colonial Secretary. There had 495 been a suggestion made that the Boers in Cape Colony required watching as much as the Boers in the Transvaal; but that had been repudiated, for the Colonial Secretary had now told them why their forces in South Africa had been nearly trebled. England had not treated the Boers like the other countries of Europe had, for it was far more to our own interests to have them friendly than otherwise, and when the position we have taken up with regard to the Transvaal comes to be written it will not look very well for Great Britain on the pages of history
§ MR. LEUTY (Leeds, E.)said he would not have troubled the House at such a late hour, but he, thought it was manifest that they had been detained because of a very important declaration of policy which had been made by the Colonial Secretary at a very inopportune time. They had been told upon a previous
| AYES. | ||
| Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden | Firbank, Joseph Thomas | Myers, William Henry |
| Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. | Fisher, William Hayes | Nicholson, William Graham |
| Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis | FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose- | Nicol, Donald Ninian |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Gedge, Sydney | Northcote, Hn. Sir H. Stafford |
| Balcarres, Lord | Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick | Penn, John |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r) | Goldsworthy, Major-General | Platt-Higgins, Frederick |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W. (Leeds | Gordon, Hon. John Edward | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Banbury, Frederick George | Goschen, Rt. Hn GJ.(St. George's | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward |
| Barry, Rt. Hn A. H. Smith-(Hunts | Goschen, George J. (Sussex) | Purvis, Robert |
| Barton, Dunbar Plunket | Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | Ritchie, Rt. Hn Chas. Thomson |
| Beach, Rt. Hn Sir M. H. (Bristol) | Gretton, John | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) |
| Beckett, Ernest William | Gull, Sir Cameron | Robinson, Brooke |
| Bethell, Commander | Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord George | Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) |
| Bond, Edward | Hanson, Sir Reginald | Ryder, John Herbert Dudley |
| Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- | Henderson, Alexander | Savory, Sir Joseph |
| Brassey, Albert | Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn | Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton | Seely, Charles Hilton |
| Butcher, John George | Kimber, Henry | Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East) | Lafone, Alfred | Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch) |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn | Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) |
| Chaloner, Captain R. G. W. | Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.) | Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.) | Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie | Valentia, Viscount |
| Chamberlain, J. Austen(Worc'r) | Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. | Wanklyn, James Leslie |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Long, Rt. Hn Walter(Liverpool) | Webster, Sir R. E. (Isle of Wight) |
| Charrington, Spencer | Macartney, W. G. Ellison | Whitmore, Charles Algernon |
| Clare, Octavius Leigh | Macdona, John Cumming | Williams, Joseph Powell(Birm. |
| Coghill, Douglas Harry | Maclure, Sir John William | Wilson, John (Falkirk) |
| Compton, Lord Alwyne | M'Calmont, H. L. B. (Cambs.) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.) |
| Cox, Irwin Edward B.(Harrow) | Martin, Richard Biddulph | Wylie, Alexander |
| Curzon, Viscount | Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F. | Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy |
| Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Middlemore, John Throgmorton | Young, Commander (Berks, E.) |
| Doughty, George | Milward, Colonel Victor | |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Montagu, Hon. J. Scott(Hants) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. | Morgan, Hn. Fred.(Monm'thsh) | Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther. |
| Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward | Morrell, George Herbert | |
| Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham(Bute |
§ occasion that it was necessary for this country to have a Fleet as strong as any two other nations, and now it had been suggested that the same principle should he extended to the Army. That was an astounding extension of policy, and if pursued to its logical conclusion meant that wherever we found the army of a foreign nation close to our own territory we must have an army there of equal number. Such a policy could only be justified by a feeling that this country was in a tottering condition, and that very heroic measures were necessary to save it from absolute ruin. Surely if that was not the motive it must be Jingoism gone absolutely mad.
§ Question put—
§ "That £1,211,900 stand part of the Resolution."
§ The house divided:—Ayes 103; Noes 22.—(Division List No. 96.)
| NOES. | ||
| Asher, Alexander | Leuty, Thomas Richmond | Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath) |
| Barlow, John Emmott | Macaleese, Daniel | Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr |
| Burns, John | M'Ghee, Richard | Wedderburn, Sir William |
| Caldwell, James | Maddison, Fred. | Williams, John Carvell (Notts) |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Oldroyd, Mark | |
| Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.) | Provand, Andrew Dryburgh | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) | Mr. Dillon and Mr. Buchanan. |
| Labouchere, Henry | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) | |
| Lambert, George | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) |
*MR. BRYN ROBERTSasked why the Volunteer battalion of the 23rd Royal Welsh Fusiliers was not permitted to wear the flash, which consisted of a piece of flat silk which was sewn below the collar at the back, which was a survival of the old time when soldiers wore pigtails? The 23rd Regiment was the only one that retained the flash, but although the Militia as well as the Line battalions wore it, it was not permitted to the officers of the Volunteer battalions of the regiment. He thought they should be permitted to wear that distinction. Of course, he did not expect an answer straight off, because it was a matter which he had sprung upon the House, but he hoped that the honourable Gentleman opposite would take the matter into his consideration.
§ THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL WILLIAMS, Birmingham, S.)promised to make inquiries into the subject and to give the honourable Member the most favourable answer which he could. He could not, for the moment, say how favourable that answer might be.
Resolution agreed to.
Remaining Resolutions agreed to.