ARMY ESTIMATES, 1900–1901. (Hansard, 22 June 1900)

§ *MR. CHANNING

On this resolution I regret I shall have to offer some observations, because unfortunately I was unaware that the Votes would have been run through so quickly on Tuesday. Therefore I must apologise to the House for now offering some observations on behalf of the district I represent on this resolution. We are all aware, from letters which have reached this country from the front, of the complaints—I hope the exaggerated complaints—with reference to the failure of the boots supplied to the troops. I certainly hope that some of these letters were of a picturesque character, and did not really represent the average conditions. I wish, however as representing a district very largely concerned in this question, to draw attention to the reply given by the hon. 867 Member opposite to my hon. friend the Member for Leicester, who also represents a district which is interested in this question, in which the hon. Member stated that the boots supplied by the regular Army contractors had shown no more than the usual average of defects which caused the rejection of a small proportion. But, Sir, it is perfectly notorious that in the case of the boots supplied to the Yeomanry and the Volunteers it was found necessary, apparently, to go outside the regular Army contractors, and to obtain supplies from slop shops and middlemen which were of an exceedingly unsatisfactory kind. One of these firms —Messrs. Samuel—have been struck off the list of Army contractors. I think we and all interested in the Yeomanry and Volunteers have a right to insist that they should be looked after as well as the Regular troops, and that the War Office should take over in a systematic way the supply of boots to them. I desire especially to complain of the War Office for not having an adequate supply of boots, and for having been, therefore, compelled to have recourse to manufacturers in India, whose boots were not tested as the boots supplied by the regular British contractors are tested in the Pimlico department. The hon. Gentleman opposite has complained that the hand-sewn industry was dying away in this country, but after several conferences with both manufacturers and artisans in that industry, I must say that the Government, and especially the War Office, have been very short-sighted in their treatment of the hand-sewn industry. They cannot expect this industry to be kept up, in the face of the rise in price of materials and wages, without sufficient inducements both to the manufacturers and the workmen. A complaint was, I believe, made by Lord Roberts as to certain patterns and types of boots being too stiff and uncomfortable for the troops. I wish to point out that the real responsibility rests with the clothing department at Pimlico. It is known to the House that manufacturers are bound down by specifications and regulations which compel them to produce boots of a certain design, and these boots are never rejected by the clothing department because of the design, which in fact has been determined by themselves. I think it is high time that there should be a departmental inquiry into these matters, and that greater elasticity in designs and more 868 inventiveness should be encouraged in order that boots of different types might be obtained which would be suited to the various climates and conditions in which our Army is compelled to carry out its operations. I complain, on behalf of the trade in my own constituency, of the unreadiness of the War Office, and their action in rushing to India in order to provide boots for two army corps. At the time this order was sent to India rather less contracts than usual had been given in Northamptonshire, and it was only in January that orders were sent down, when it became necessary to make further provision, and after there had been considerable complaint as to-going to India for a supply of boots. I am assured by experts that the action of the War Office in obtaining these boots from India was exceedingly injudicious, because Indian boots had failed to a very large extent in the Soudan campaign. The boots which really stood the hard wear of the campaign in the Soudan were supplied by Northampton manufacturers, and were specially made with wiring and screws. I am assured that the leather used for the Indian boots is very thin and is inferior in tanning to the leather used in this country. The Indian leather might be used for uppers in this country, but no one would ever dream of using it for the soles of boots intended for hard wear. It seems to me that the failure of the boots described in many of the soldiers' letters from the front may be due to the fact that they were taken from the Indian stores instead of being strong, well-fitted boots, suitable for rough wear in a difficult country like South Africa. It was stated by the War Office, when the first protest was made against the use of boots from India, that that was done because it was not possible to meet all the requirements in the time from the resources of the home trade, and that no question of money influenced the transaction. I do not think that that explanation can be accepted as quite satisfactory. I am assured that all the boots required could easily have been supplied by British manufacturers. I have already pointed out that a smaller number of contracts than usual was given out in the autumn, although war was imminent, and it was not until later that larger contracts were issued. Some complaint' was made that the manufacturers had 869 asked too large a price, but the price of leather had risen upwards of 20 per cent. and labour had also risen, and the manufacturers were accordingly entitled to a reasonable increase in price. It was admitted by the hon. Member the Financial Secretary to the War Office that the Indian boots were bought at about the lowest price paid for English boots, and accordingly a considerable saving was effected by the transaction. I would not complain of that if the boots were equal to English boots, but when we are assured by experts that these boots were much inferior and were not suitable for active service in a rough country, I think the responsibility was very considerable and the policy of saving very unsatisfactory. I should like to ask how it was that this country was not provided with a sufficient supply of boots for this campaign, and that India had such a large stock ready. That seems very extraordinary. [Several HON. MEMBERS: Divide, divide!] If hon. Members are impatient they should remember I represent one of the districts chiefly interested in this industry. I would ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office how far the statement in the Shoe and Leather Record, to the effect that there was no question that all the boots required could have been supplied by the county of Northampton, and that twopence per pair was the actual amount which divided the parties, represents the facts. These Indian boots were not subjected to any of the tests applied to English boots, and I think it is only reasonable to insist that when the War Office is compelled to have recourse to outside sources similar tests should be imposed. The Government ought to have had a sufficient supply available, and failing that, they ought at least to have made sure that the boots obtained to make up the deficiency should be submitted to the same tests as English boots. In conclusion, it seems to me to be plainly the duty of the War Office to conduct an inquiry into the best type of boot for our troops, and that they should also institute some intelligible and workable system of securing an adequate and satisfactory supply of boots for all branches—the Yeomanry and Volunteers as well as the Regular troops—in order that the scandals we have heard of in the present campaign should be impossible in the future, and that contractors who engage in this work should be given fair treatment.

§ THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover)

We have now had the advantage of hearing the speech which the hon. Gentleman was unavoidably prevented from delivering on Tuesday last, and I feel I can best consult the wishes of hon. Members by making a very brief reply. The hon. Member expressed his concern as to reports regarding the failure of the boots supplied to the troops, but in a report received from Sir Redvers Buller on 13th March he stated that, on the whole, he considered that the clothing and equipment of the men had worn well, and that that was especially the case as regards the boots, which had been subjected to an exceptionally hard test, owing to constant wear and the stony nature of the country in which the operations took place. The hon. Member next expressed his regret that we had not an adequate supply of boots at the beginning of the war. We have sent to South Africa over 200,000 men, and in addition to the boots the men took with them, we have sent out 374,000 pairs of boots. I have listened to many debates in this House, but I have never heard it suggested that we should keep 500,000 pairs of boots as a precaution against the possibility of warlike operations. In buying Army boots there were three things to be considered—excellence of material, expedition in delivery, and cost. The cost comes last, and promptness in delivery comes first, and I will not apologise for one moment because we did order 60,000 pairs of boots from India. It is not true that those boots were not inspected. They were taken from stores in India and were all inspected before being stored. They were the boots worn during the mountainous campaign in the Tirah, and so far from being condemned during the operations on the Nile, they were specially praised by Lord Kitchener after the campaign. Since we ordered these boots from India we have ordered 550,000 pairs in England. I think the House will feel I have already trespassed two-long on its time in discussing this matter.