§ 1. Motion posed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for additional expenditure, due to the War in South Africa, in respect of the following Army Services, viz.: Vote 6. Transport and Remounts, £2,000,000; Vote 7. Provisions, Forage, and other Supplies, £1,000,000—Total, £3,000,000."
§ *SIR ARTHUR HAYTER (Walsall)
congratulated the Secretary of State for War on the magnificent speech to which they had listened with appreciation and advantage. Dealing with the Estimates, the hon. Member called attention to the enormous loss of horses in connection with the South African campaign. That was a matter of which the Committee should take notice. Since the original Estimates were presented the total sum voted for remounts was no less than £8,100,000. While he recognised that this war had been carried on under exceptional circumstances, and in a climate which was very trying, he must call attention to the exceedingly bad arrangements which were made for the supply of horses. Our strongest cavalry regiments had 609 rank and file, but they had only 465 horses, or a permanent deficiency of 144. In the Household Cavalry regiments there were 404 rank and file, but only 275 horses, being a deficiency of 129. The result was that we had to go all over the world when the war broke out to find horses. We went to the Argentine Republic and to the London General Omnibus Company. The Argentine horses had been excessively bad. What we did in South Africa was to establish at a place called Maitland camp, a depot for horses, and the animals, imported from all over the world, were taken to that place. He had received a letter from one of the officers employed 1093 there, and referring to the way the horses were treated the letter contained the following—In October, 1899, war was declared, and I maintain that England at that moment was absolutely unprepared so far as remounts and horses generally were concerned. They therefore sent officers and veterinary surgeons to all parts of the globe and bought horses of every kind. This took time. The various regiments arrived at Maitland camp near Cape Town and waited there for their horses. The horses arrived in time, were at once seized on and sent up country. After four or live days in a truck they were detrained and marched with heavy men and much kit on their backs twenty or thirty miles, and so on day after day. The result was that they died in thousands, which was both cruel and costly. I therefore think some other system must be employed in the future.The hon. Member agreed that some other method must be employed. Everyone acquainted with horses knew that after a voyage of 6,000 miles horses required alterative diet, gentle exercise, and good treatment. But our horses were hurried up country at once. If after the first two battles there had been sufficient cavalry we could have cut off the Boers in their retreat. He should like very much to know why Basuto ponies had not been employed. In a previous war there was a whole regiment who were mounted on Basuto ponies. The son of a popular Whip in that House, who had been out there, told him that he rode a Cape pony which carried him through the whole campaign. The gentleman was fifteen stone, and the pony which carried him, with full accoutrements, was perfectly well and fit now. We ought to have bought up every possible Cape pony. Besides their power of endurance, they were accustomed to the climate, and would have stayed the campaign better. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give attention to having a better registration of horses. He hoped also that the cavalry regiments would, in point of horses, be brought up to the number of men. In Ireland if stallions were lent to various counties the Government ought to have right of pre-emption in the produce. One of the greatest blots in connection with the war was the deficiency in horses. He urged that some provision should be made whereby we would not be subjected to the same experience in future.
§ COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)
said he did not know anything about the Cape 1094 horses. The best horses for cavalry were Irish horses. That market had been altogether neglected by the Government for the last fifteen or twenty years, and the consequence was that there was a comparatively bad supply of horses in Ireland when the war broke out. He wished to know if that was exclusively the fault of the Government. The House of Commons voted plenty of money to pay for horses. They voted £40 a horse. It paid the farmer to produce a good cavalry horse for that sum. But the farmer did not get £40. He had tried to get the figures from the War Office, and he had put question after question in the House, but he had got very little information. The Army authorities were ruining their last breeding ground for horses—Ireland— by the practice of buying through dealers. Last year about 6,000 horses were purchased from dealers and 209 from non-dealers. The dealer got £40 per horse and paid only £28 to the farmer: and when the cavalry officer purchased direct from the farmer he paid only the same amount—£28— in order not to spoil the dealers' market. The consequence was, that for the last ten years farmers in Ireland had found that it did not pay to produce horses for the Army. While he believed that Irish horses were best for cavalry purposes, he did not mean to say that they were best for artillery. As a general rule the Irish horse had not sufficient weight for the artillery. There were many inconveniences from having to buy horses through dealers. The remedy for this was to make the cavalry colonel buy his horses direct from the farmer, giving him the price which was now paid to the dealer. He hoped the Secretary of State for War would turn over a new leaf in this matter.
§ *Mr. FULLER (Wiltshire, Westbury)
said he washed to support the hon. and gallant Member for North Galway in urging that remounts should he brought from farmers direct, not only in Ireland but also in this country. He had had some experience in the Yeomanry in the buying of remounts, and knew how easy it was to deal direct with the farmers in the west of England. It was the custom in the west of England for dealers to receive from £40 to £50 each for horses which they purchase in 1095 anticipation of a visit by an Army officer at half the money. He thought there ought to be a different system of purchase. The horses should be brought to certain centres for the inspection of Army officers and purchased direct from the breeders. The question was one of very considerable importance to breeders of horses in the west of England, and he earnestly pressed the right hon. Gentleman to turn over in his mind the possibility of meeting in some such way as he had suggested the wishes of the breeders of horses.
§ MR. KEARLEY (Devonport)
said he wished to ask a question with regard to the fittings on board the South African transports, and the enormous loss of horses in consequence of their being faulty. On one of the transports, lie believed it was the "Weimar," going from Bombay to Durban, the horses were swept overboard wholesale, simply because the fitting's were of a faulty character. Some of the transports, on the other hand, had iron fittings of the very best character. He suggested that the Government should lay down specific regulations as to the sort of fittings to be used on board the transports, and that in the event of there being a loss of horseflesh caused by fittings of a non-regulation character the owners of the vessel should bear the cost. The suffering involved ought in itself to be sufficient to attract the attention of the War Office to the matter, and the Committee were entitled to some assurance that the question should be looked into, so that a repetition of the scandals which were far too prevalent at the early stages of the war would be avoided.
§ MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)
said that he happened to be at Durban when the particular ship referred to by the last speaker came in. It was true that the few horses remaining were cut about in all directions, but it was hardly fair to put it down to the bad fittings. The real cause was that the captain of the vessel was not familiar with that part of the coast; he put out too far to sea, and there was a tremendous storm raging. There; might possibly have been faults in the fittings, but that was not the main reason.
§ Mr. KEARLEY
said that as a matter of fact he was aware that a great deal of the loss of horseflesh on that ship was occasioned down below by a tank getting loose.
§ THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY To THE WAR OFFICE (LORD STANLEY,) Lancashire, Westhoughton
suggested that the hon. Member might be confusing two cases.
§ MR. KEARLEY
was certain he was not mistaken, as it was only recently he was discussing the matter with a man on the ship. It was the case of the 9th Hussars. The fittings were wooden and faulty. But he did not rest his complaint upon one case. It was a matter of public notoriety that in the earlier stages of the war the fittings passed by the Army officials in London and Liverpool proved to be altogether inadequate.
§ MR. COCHRANE (Ayrshire, N.)
agreed that as a general rule Argentine horses were very unsatisfactory, ft would have been much better if more horses could have been purchased from Ireland. His experience of Irish horses was limited to one, for which he paid, as he thought, a very high price. But although he, worked that horse very hard in South Africa, ho had no difficulty in selling it out there for £10 more than he originally gave for it. That might be a good tip for the Government, because, if they did not want to bring the horses back, the people out there would buy them, as they were very glad to get hold of good horses. Another point to which he wished to refer was the burden borne by the cavalry and mounted infantry in the field. The weight was perfectly inconceivable. The saddles were loaded with forage, a lance, a sword, and a carbine, with perhaps five or six stone weight tacked on, so that it was almost impossible to keep the saddle in the middle. The consequence was that the horses suffered severely from sore hack, and were then absolutely useless for all practical purposes in the field. He saw no reason why the mounted troops should not have a certain number of light squadron carts, with, say, four horses apiece, which should follow at a distance and come up to the camp at night. These carts could carry the forage, tools, rugs, blankets, and so on, that were not imme- 1097 diately required by the men. The advantage of such a scheme would be that immediately a horse began to get a sore back it could be changed for one of the leaders in the cart, and, by being relieved of the saddle, it would be able to keep up with the regiment, so that the necessity of leaving it on the veldt, as so many hundreds and thousands had had to be left, would he avoided. The hon. Member was proceeding to refer to the proposed extension of the system of registration, when
§ MR. COCHRANE
said that on the proper occasion he would refer in a friendly manner to that subject.
§ CAPTAIN NORTON (Newington, W.)
looked upon the question of the proper supply of horses as one of the greatest importance. The registration system was one of the very best methods that could be adopted, and if a system could be devised by which the British Government might have a claim upon colonial horses—
reminded the hon. Member that the Committee were discussing a Supplementary Estimate for horses in respect of the war in South Africa. The general question of horses, registration, and so forth, was not open for discussion.
§ COLONEL NOLAN
pointed out that Vote 6. Item D, included the registration of horses. Would not the discussion of the question therefore be in order?
If the Minister in charge of the Vote said that any of this money has been paid in respect of registration of horses the hon. Member would be right. But I understand that that is not so. The money is asked for in respect of the purchase of horses which have been or will be sent to South Africa before the end of the financial year.
§ CAPTAIN NORTON,
passing from the registration to the transport of horses, said that the case of the 9th Hussars was but one isolated instance. There were at least half-a-dozen ships which sailed from various ports taking horses to South Africa in regard to which the same point arose. In many cases the 1098 enormous loss of horseflesh was due almost entirely to bad fittings. The ships had been fitted under the supervision of officers who were not experts in reference to that particular duty. In some cases ships sailed without veterinary surgeons of experience on board, and horses bought abroad were brought down to the ship-side absolutely raw and unprepared for the voyage. Where duly qualified veterinary surgeons were on board they were practically under the orders of officers —some of them Militia, and most of them infantry officers—who had no knowledge whatever as regarded the shipping of horses. The Army Veterinary Department had never received fair treatment at the hands of the authorities. At the time when the war broke out there were twelve vacancies, but only one member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons presented himself for examination. The main reason for that state of things was that, as in the case of the Army Medical Department, the views of the profession had not been attended to. The Army was consequently tabooed by the schools, and the best men were not forthcoming. The department was so framed and constituted that there was no arrangement for extension in the case of war. As nine-tenths of the British campaigns were carried on in countries more or less uncivilised, where if there was railway transport at all it was very limited, there was no army in the world which needed to be better provided for an extension of its veterinary department than the British. The difficulties of supplying an army in the field with only one line of railway were prodigious, as to a great extent, wheeled transport and pack animals had to be relied upon. The horses, mules, and oxen necessary for that purpose, of course, required veterinary treatment just as much as the cavalry and artillery horses. A large number of veterinary surgeons had to be employed; but was it to be supposed for one moment, seeing the great rise which had taken place in the social status and position of veterinary surgeons to-day as compared with a few years ago, that men would leave good practices to enter the Army for temporary employment under the conditions obtaining at present? Of course they would not. Large numbers of the men 1099 who were employed had proved absolute failures, as they had no knowledge whatever of the duties they were supposed to perform. Considerable responsibility rested upon the War Office authorities for not having established prior to the war some system whereby they could lay their hands upon, at any rate, a limited number of properly qualified veterinary surgeons of a certain standing.
I must remind the hon. Member that there is no money asked for in regard to veterinary surgeons.
§ CAPTAIN NORTON
pointed out that he was endeavouring to show that the loss of horseflesh was mainly due to the fact that the horses had not been properly taken care of. When they arrived in South Africa, instead of being prepared for transport by rail, they were sent under incompetent persons to the various depots up-country. They were put in charge of men from various cavalry regiments whose commanding officers had found them to be practically useless, as it stood to reason that no colonel commanding a mounted corps would send his best men to the depÔt to take care of horses. There was a sort of dual responsibility between the military and the veterinary officers in charge of the depot. Such a system was bound to do badly, and as a result at two crises of the war operations were delayed in consequence of the dearth of horses. Had a proper supply of horses been forthcoming many men who had lost their lives in South Africa would have been alive to-day. After the battles of Graspan, Modder River, and others, the general officer in command was unable to take military advantage of the success he had gained, because he had no cavalry either to turn the flanks of the enemy or to pursue the foe when they were in retreat. Another point in connection with this matter was the effect which the large number of horses, mules, and oxen dying on the march or in crossing the various rivers had upon the health of the troops. Probably a great deal of the enteric fever was caused by the contamination of the water supplies by the bodies of these animals. With regard to the large number of Argentine 1100 horses which had been purchased, it was known that hardened horses were not to be found in the Argentine Republic. They were bought there in a green state, and surely that was not the field to which the War Office should have gone. Others were bought in Hungary, where it was understood £7 or £8 per head was paid by the dealers through whom they were bought, but the British Government had to pay something nearer £40. He admitted there were great difficulties in buying horses in a foreign country, but surely a great and wealthy country like England could lay its hands upon a certain number of men with the necessary qualifications to buy horses in Hungary. The question of the weight carried by the horses was one of considerable importance. Members who were old cavalry officers had called attention to this matter over and over again. It was said that the British cavalry as mounted men were equally as good as the Boers, and yet the Boers with smaller horses were able to walk round the British troops. It stood to reason that the tremendous weight carried by the horse must tell in a long march. Moreover, the average British cavalry soldier took practically no interest in his horse in the matter of sore back, and a horse after two or three days sore back became absolutely useless. In South Africa no depots were provided for these horses with sore backs, and they were ridden until they were practically useless, and then they had to be despatched. Had those horses been sent to proper depôts they would have, in four or five weeks time, been not only equally good but far better than the new arrivals. His belief was that at the root of all these evils lay the want of proper organisation of the Army Veterinary Department. It was impossible all at once to extend a department to do ten times the work expected of it under ordinary circumstances, and he hoped that under the scheme foreshadowed in the able speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War—upon which he heartily congratulated him—he would not forget this great necessity in the Army Veterinary Department.
MR. RATCLITF (Staffordshire, Burton)
said that something had been stated 1101 about buying horses in the Argentine and in Ireland. He thought it was wise to buy horses at the present time on the other side of the equator. Horses had to change their coats at certain times of the year according to the season, and it stood to reason that horses bought in Ireland and taken over to the other side of the equator would have to undergo a change of climate which would be very trying to them. Therefore, he thought the Government were wise in purchasing horses on the other side of the equator. He was not arguing in favour of Argentine horses, but he thought horses could be bought, probably in Australia or elsewhere, which would serve the Army better than the horses bought in Ireland.
*SIR WALTER FOSTER (Derbyshire, Ilkeston)
said he had been induced to make one or two observations in consequence of what he had been told went on in South Africa by an old friend of his who had been out there, and had witnessed the excessive waste of horseflesh which had occurred during the campaign. That waste meant a terrible loss of money to the taxpayers, and he could not help thinking that in this respect the forces had suffered from a want of organisation just as they had suffered from this cause in reference to the spread of disease in the Army. At a late period of the war, horses were shipped in large numbers under great difficulties, and with some defects in the transport arrangements. Those who were not military men or veterinary surgeons knew that horses brought over a long sea voyage always required a certain amount of rest before they were put to work. He was assured on good authority that when the horses came to be landed at Cape Town no preparations were made for giving them a short period of rest, and although they were suffering from all the ills of the voyage, made very often in ships inadequately fitted, they were entrained at once and sent up country to the depôt. Even when they arrived there they did not receive that period of rest which was absolutely necessary in order to fit them for the hard service of the campaign. Horses required proper and considerate treatment, but they never received such 1102 treatment, and they were put to carry those enormous weights referred to in the debate in that bad condition. How could such horses, carrying from twenty to twenty-one stone, fie expected to compete with the Boers, who were mounted on hardy ponies, carrying perhaps from 20 to 25 per cent, less weight. In all those matters of rapid movement on horseback no one knew better than the noble Lord that weight told more than anything else. They could not get pace if they did not look after the weight, and a weight-carrying horse, however good he might be, had no chance against an inferior horse if he had two stone more to carry. Not only had they been carrying on a wasteful and almost indefensible policy in regard to the treatment of horses, but they had not been giving the men such a, number of remounts as would enable them effectively to bring the war to an end. On the ground of humanity alone, and out of regard for the dumb creation, better care ought to have been taken of those unfortunate horses. Hundreds of horses had dropped down on the roadside in consequence of the labour put upon them when they were not in a condition to do it. The horses had died in thousands, and he should like to hear from the noble Lord the exact mortality among the horses. Those horses which had died on the roadside had been a source of great danger to the troops themselves. Their carcasses had been left there rotting in the sun, and often polluting the water supply, and if this had not produced enteric fever, it had contributed largely to that other disease known as dysentery, which had affected their troops in South Africa, and which had done so much to swell the list of deaths from disease. On these grounds he thought they ought to press this matter upon the attention of the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman his colleague opposite, in order that the great waste of horseflesh might be avoided in the future.
§ LORD STANLEY
Perhaps I may be allowed to intervene at this stage in order to answer a few of the questions which have been raised. I can assure this Committee that the War Office authorities have not the slightest inten- 1103 tion of covering up any shortcomings. One question put to mo had reference to the purchase of Basuto and Cape ponies. I may say that we got every Basuto pony that it was possible to get, but our Commissioner found that there was not a great disposition to sell. I should like to point out that a large portion of this Tote which we are taking to-night is for horses and Cape ponies purchased in those districts which have come under martial law, and in consequence we have been able to obtain them. We sent out buyers to purchase not only Basuto ponies, but also Cape ponies, and they had obtained as many as they possibly could. Two or three hon. Members have spoken with reference to the future purchasing of horses for the Army, and I confess that I am entirely in accord with those who would wish us as far as possible to buy from our own breeders, and thus give them an inducement to produce a class of horse that will be useful to us in the future. I am not sure that I should confine this to trying to produce cavalry horses in this country, but I should try and extend it by having large stud farms in Canada and South Africa.
§ LORD STANLEY
Australia is slightly different, because that is a country from which we draw upon so much for horses for the Indian Army, and we do not wish to interfere with that supply which must be kept up for India. Cape Colony and Canada seem to me to be suitable places where we might be able to establish some system of breeding horses. As far as Canada is concerned, I know it is open to the objection that in the winter it is impossible to send horses produced there into the warmer climates. I think, however, in South Africa it would be perfectly possible to do something in this direction very successfully, and I hope when the war ceases we shall be able to start some system of this kind. There is another system which has been mentioned, which personally I am very much in favour of, and that is whether we could not, by providing for the tenant farmers in this country and in Ireland a good class of mare and using sound stallions, obtain a lien on the produce. I know there 1104 are a great many difficulties in the way of carrying this out, but they might possibly be overcome. Upon the question of the general buying of horses there have been endless difficulties. I do not think that there is a single Englishman or Irishman who does not, in the first place, think he is the only man who knows how to buy a horse, and he thinks he can readily convince anybody else who is selling you a horse that he is really doing you, and that he could get you a better horse for the same money. I do not think that we can say a word against those persons who have been sent to buy our horses, for they have done their best. They have had very hard work to do, and, although they have had some failures, I cannot help thinking that the majority of horses they have purchased have not been of such a very bad class as some hon. Members would have us believe.
With regard to the purchasing of horses at the present moment, my hon. and gallant friend may be pleased to hear that orders have been given for the purchase of 1,000 horses and cobs in Ireland, and we have also given directions that our dealers in Ireland and in England shall put themselves more in touch with the breeders of those, horses than with the dealers. If gentlemen of influence in the various localities would assist our buyers in any way it would lead to better results. I think hon. Members who understand anything about buying horses will certainly bear me out when I say that the amount of rubbish brought forward for artillery and cavalry purposes is extraordinary, and disapproval of these animals is very often expressed in very strong language. Two or three hon. Members have referred to the question of the weight carried by our horses in in South Africa. I do not think anybody could have been out there without being impressed with the enormous amount of weight that we have to put on the backs of our horses and men to send them out in an efficient state even for a three days march. That, of course, is one of the questions which will have to be dealt with, but it is hardly my place to express an opinion upon such a subject. I think it is one of those questions which can safely be left to those officers who 1105 have had the most experience in those matters, and it must be left entirely in the hands of the military authorities to make suggestions.
My hon. friend the Member for West Newington spoke about the Veterinary Department, and I think that is one of the very few omissions which one can point to in the statement of my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War to-day. But though he omitted it in his speech, I may say he has not omitted it in his consideration, and an attempt is being made to put the Army Veterinary Department on a much more substantial basis than it has ever been before, and by the better terms which we propose to offer I think we shall be able to get a better class of veterinary surgeons than we have had during the present war. At the same time, it is obvious that it is perfectly impossible to have in permanent employment in the Army the number of veterinary surgeons required in time of war, and if we can come to some arrangement in regard to veterinary officers similar to that which we have arranged in regard to the horses, I hope that will be a step in the direction in any future war of saving our horses. The hon. and gallant Member was wrong when he said that we had no sick establishments for the horses. I know there was one at Bloemfontein, at Fisher's Farm, and there must have been something like 300 or 400 horses under treatment there. There was another such establishment at Pretoria, and there was also another in Natal.
§ LORD STANLEY
I was not aware of that. It is very easy for hon. Members to talk about collecting sick horses and placing them in the depot. When a regiment was on the march there may have been cases where perhaps horses might have been saved by sending them to these; depots, but owing sometimes to the circumstances of the case and the distance you are from the main line, you are obliged to put the finishing touch to the horse by riding him on an extra day. Hon. Members must not judge in this respect simply by what they hear, and I would suggest that they might accept the verdict of some of those officers who 1106 saw these things and who are convinced that as much was done in that direction as is possible. With regard to giving the horses on their arrival at Cape Town a period of rest, there were many difficulties in the way. In the first place it was difficult to get a good camp for them, and it must also be remembered that what we wanted was a horse fit to take the field at the point of distribution. If you brought a horse to Cape Town and got him fit there, if you had then to put him in a truck for eight days, where he would not be regularly fed owing to the great difficulties in the way of carrying this out, when you came to take him out you can readily imagine that a great deal of the condition put on at Cape Town must go off before you get him to the district where he was wanted. The ideal treatment would have been to have taken all the horses to the distributing place and got them into condition there. That would have meant, however, an enormous expenditure of forage, which it was altogether impossible to give. It was as much as could be done to feed the few horses that we had got there, without having to supply some thousands of them while they were getting fit. With regard to the horses we are sending out now, it should be remembered that part of this vote is for a large number of the mounted trooops which we are now sending out as reinforcements. In addition to this the Vote includes payment for all the horses and ponies that we have taken in South Africa, and, in addition, we are at the present moment providing a reserve stock to endeavour to see if we can get some condition on them at Cape Town before they are sent out to the front. I think we shall be able now to send out three thousand a month over and above the demand that has been made.
With regard to the fitting up of the ships, I have not provided myself with the figures as to how many horses have died owing to the defective fitting up of the ships. Of course it would be rather difficult to give those figures, because you must also take into account the sort of weather you bad on the voyage. There are other circumstances besides defective fittings to account for the great loss of horses. When the '" Suffolk" went down all 1107 the horses on board, belonging to the 10th Hussars, were lost, but when that regiment got to Cape Town the men were provided with Argentine horses, and I believe they outclassed any of the horses in the other two squadrous, so that all Argentine horses are evidently not of the same sort. All these ships are carefully examined by naval experts before the horses are sent out. There is a great difference of opinion as to how you should ship horses, but I believe that every possible care has been taken, and if this war has brought out defects, I am perfectly certain that if it requires any expenditure of money to put these matters right in the future my right hon. friend will be the last man to stand in the way of the money being spent. I do not think it will be found that these fittings have been as defective as has been made out, and I believe that the mortality on board has been more due to weather and to change of climate than to any defect in the fittings.
I think I have now dealt with all the questions put to me, and I would like to say that we are endeavouring as far as possible to carry out the promises that we made in this House with regard to the future purchase of horses. We have written to Lord Strathcona, and we are arranging for buyers to go out to Canada. We are not purchasing any more Hungarian horses, but we are purchasing another class which we are told is very useful in South Africa. With regard to England and Ireland, more buyers are being sent out, and experienced officers are visiting various districts, and we hope that in this way we shall be able to come in touch with local breeders without purchasing so exclusively from dealers as we had to do in the past.
§ LORD STANLEY
I do not think I can, and I am afraid that it is impossible for anybody to say what it has been.
§ *SIR CHARLES DILKE
said there was no doubt that the mortality amongst the horses in South Africa had been greater than in any war in history. The loss of horses after landing had been absolutely gigantic and beyond 1108 all precedent, and there bad been no breakdown and no failure in the war more serious than that connected with the supply of horses, and it had had a most disastrous effect on the course of the war. Generally speaking, he found that the horses which came out with the cavalry regiments were in fairly good condition, for they had been properly looked after. The greatest loss took place in the case of the horses bought in Argentina, Australia, the United States and Canada, and in some of the Yeomanry horses purchased in England. They were landed in a very unsatisfactory manner at some of the ports, and then were put into various remount camps which were short-handed all along, though there was plenty of forage. There was not only a deficiency in the number of the men, but they were unsatisfactory. The deficiency was made up by the employment of raw Kaffirs without experience of horse tending. Then the horses were sent up to the front in that bad condition. The noble Lord bad described the great difficulty that took place in their transport. In one case the horses had been no fewer than eight days in the train. The boxes became slippery— the were not very good boxes in the first place—and the horses got knocked about in every possible way. At Craddock, and perhaps at Bloemfontein, the horses were fed out of the train and proper arrangements were made by the officer commanding there. That was the one bright spot in the life of the horses. Then the trains were sent up in charge of a very short number of men. There were often 200 horses in a train, and commonly 150, and there was only one officer, one non-commissioned officer, and six soldiers—although there were a few more at the last, and some Kaffirs. As all the horses had to be fed in the train the conditions of the journey were disastrous. Then the horses were immediately sent on marches of considerable length. In one case the horses, immediately after a three or four days journey in the train, were sent a march of thirty miles, and most of them died. The loss was gigantic, and that had a most disastrous effect on the course of the war. We had had good luck in that the enemy had no cavalry. One general officer who had commanded a 1109 cavalry brigade under General French had stated publicly that the army never could have reached the Portuguese frontier if the enemy had had any cavalry. Several speakers had referred to the weight required to be carried by the horses, as though that was an explanation for the losses. Of course everybody knew that it a horse had less weight to carry he could do better; but they must remember that the success they had met with in keeping horses alive had been much less in South Africa than in the Peninsula, where very few cavalry horses had been lost. There was the great march from Salamanca to Ciudad Rodrigo, where only the artillery horses were killed and the cavalry horses were saved, although the weight carried by them was much greater than that carried now by our cavalry. In the French War of 1870 both the German and French cavalry carried more weight, and they were able to keep their horses alive, which the Germans did, but who carried by one stone the heavier weight, In the march to Russia by the Grand Army the cavalry horses carried a heavier weight than ours did in South Africa. Our loss in horseflesh in South Africa had been greater than in any previous war. It was evident that the noble Lord had given his mind to this matter, and he had shown the Committee that the lessons of the war had not been lost upon him, and that everything would be done in the future to prevent a repetition of the horrible loss of horses. He was inclined to think that if at the beginning of the war precautions had been taken, a great deal of the expenditure might have been saved. He could not but fear that the great destruction in horseflesh was due to the want of training on the part of the men in horse-mastership and in generally looking after horses.
§ MAJOR RASCH (Essex, Chelmsford)
congratulated the Secretary of State on the extremely lucid and clever speech which he had made. He regretted he was not an expert on this question, for he had not been to the front, although that was not entirely his fault. The regiment with which he had served, however, bad been at the front, and he had collected from his old comrades some information which might be of 1110 some use. In the first place, they had to deplore a waste of horseflesh from bad treatment. Some of the horses were hunters which had been used to careful attention in warm stables, and yet they had been put on board cattle trucks, and sent down to Southampton for shipment without a rag of clothing. Consequently they contracted the seeds of pneumonia, which was developed during the rough passage to the Cape. Then they were put in charge of Militia officers who had never seen a horse before. It was due to the Member for North Aberdeen that so many horses arrived alive. Even after arrival they were kept three days without food. When a Cape millionaire imported horses he reckoned on their taking a year to acclimatise, but these horses were sent up to the front without even waiting forty-eight hours, and the natural consequence was that they died like flies. In one particular regiment seven times the number of horses which the regulations required passed through the ranks. The question of horse-breeding had been mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, who could not do better than look at a letter by Sir Walter Gilbey, which appeared in The Times of 27th December last. In that letter allusion was made to the stud farms established in Austria in 1876. The noble Lord had said that the plan would be to get a lien on the horses in these stud farms. What was the system adopted in Austria? The farmers sent their mares to the stud farms to be served without payment, and the produce was afterwards bought at £28 for cavalry horses and £26 for draught horses. There was another interesting letter, which appeared in The Times on 25th December last, signed by a cavalry officer. That writer alluded particularly to the question of Hungarian horses. It seemed to him that Hungarian horses were absolutely useless. They had straight shoulders, staring coats, and the only hard thing about them was their mouths. They failed when any weight was put on them. He did not always agree with the right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean, but he did so in regard to the weight which cavalry horses had to carry. The saddles were enormous—more like the equipment of an elephant. The stirrups were 1111 as thick as two of a man's fingers, and wherever there was a bare bit of horseflesh the authorities insisted on covering it with a buckle or something. The total weight the horses were supposed to carry was nineteen stone and a half, and he had been told by some friends of his that the only way in which they could keep their horses in condition was to ride on a stripped saddle and without any weight. Of course, it was absurd to ask an eleven-stone hunter to carry nineteen stone and a half. His hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn suggested that the campaign should be carried on by cavalry only, as had been done by Alexander 2,000 years ago, each man with three spare horses. That was how it had been carried on by the Boers. If we had had more remounts we should probably have done better in the war.
§ MR. J. P. FARRELL (Longford, N.)
said he had listened with considerable interest to the speeches made, from the statement of the Secretary for War to that of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down; but as an Irish Member he must say that there had been a remarkable desire exhibited to ignore the claims of Ireland to a fair share of the purchases of remounts for the cavalry in South Africa. One hon. Gentleman had gone so far as to say that Ireland as a horse-breeding country should be ignored, that no money should be spent in Ireland, but that it all should be spent in the Argentine and other countries beyond the Equator. He would like to know how much of the taxation of this country was to be borne by the people of Argentine or of Hungary, where the horses were being bought at present. The noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the War Office had outlined some plan by which the Government were going to establish stud-farms—one in Canada and one in South Africa. But the noble Lord did not outline any scheme by which the horse-breeders in this country and Ireland would receive some benefit from such a plan. Now, it was generally admitted that Ireland, of all countries in the world, was the best for the production of useful horses; and why should Ireland be given the go-by in this respect? The right hon. Gentleman had said that something like 1,000 1112 horses or cobs were to be purchased in Ireland; but from 150,000 to 160,000 horses had been sent to South Africa, and nearly 100,000 of these had died. From time to time the gaps caused by that terrible mortality had to be filled, and he would most respectfully submit that 1,000 was not a fair proportion to obtain from Ireland. The people of Ireland were, as a whole, opposed to the war, on the grounds of policy and humanity, and so far as they were concerned it would be to their advantage, from a political point of view, if Government did not trouble them with any orders. But the unfortunate part of the arrangement between the two countries was that they were still compelled to pay a proportion of the cost of the war; and therefore as long as they had to pay this large tribute, it was but fair and just that a proportion of the horses required should be purchased in Ireland. If the whole Irish market was only to supply 1,000 horses they were not receiving that fair proportion that was their due.
§ LORD STANLEY
I said that there was one order for 1,000 horses, but it does not follow that that is to be the only order.
§ MR. J. B. FARRELL
said he accepted the statement of the noble Lord, but he wanted to allude to the way in which these particular purchases were carried out. The horse fairs in his neighbourhood were very largely supplied with serviceable and useful animals, but no representative of the War Department had ever gone over to these large horse fairs, so far as he had been able to ascertain. A military officer might attend them for the purpose of buying remounts. He thought it would be right to give encouragement to the official dealers to go to these fairs. Better still, notice might be given by advertisement that on a certain day so many horses would be examined with a view to purchase. Another question he wished to raise on this Vote of three millions was the supply of provisions, forage and transport in Ireland. Complaints had been made in House already about the boycotting of Irish contractors to the Army. He would like to know what contracts for provisions, forage, clothing 1113 and other supplies had been given to Irish contractors. Very much feeling had been generated in Ireland on account of the great loss that accrued to the country by giving contracts to syndicates who had mainly their headquarters in London. It was not a pleasure to Irishmen to raise these points, but since England insisted on making them pay their proportion of the cost of the war, it was but fair and right that the Irish taxpayers should receive a fair share of the contracts.
§ *SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT
said he should like to add his congratulations to the unanimous tribute which had already been offered to the Secretary of State for War upon the admirable address which he bad delivered that night.
Attention called to the fact that forty were not present. House and forty Members being Members counted, present—
§ *SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT
said it had never been his good fortune to listen to a statement more broadminded and statesmanlike than that of the Secretary for War that evening. The question of remounts was one of the most important that had arisen during the course of the present war. He was not sure whether the deficiency in the supply of horses ought not to rank as one of the foremost causes of the length, expense, and disasters of the war. In his opinion it was entitled to rank as equal to others which he would only refer to—namely, the insufficient supply of troops in South Africa before the war began, and the bad generalship which was displayed at the earlier stages of the campaign. Both of these sources of blunder were responsible for an amount of from £50,000,000 to £70,000,000. Many thousands of lives might have been saved if there had been prevision at the War Office or on the part of the military authorities as regards the quantity and quality of horses requisite for the war. It was absolutely deplorable when they thought of the waste of horses that had occurred, and what an enormous expenditure there had been in consequence of the want of prevision. He did not know what the 1114 total amount was, but taking the horses at £40 apiece, and that was probably the minimum cost, at least £6,000,000 had been spent upon horses, and if £500,000 had been spent judiciously before the war began upon the provision of a sufficient supply of horses and remounts the greater part of that money would have been saved. The country had a right to know who was responsible for this. There were three authorities that might be responsible. First of all there was the Cabinet. If the Cabinet as a whole decided that this money was not to be spent, then they were clearly responsible. On the other hand, it might be what was called the War Office that was responsible. The third authority that might be responsible were the military advisers of the Secretary of State for War and the Cabinet. He hoped that the Secretary of State for War would see that the responsibility for this frightful waste of horses and money was put on the right person. He thought the noble Lord the Member for the Westhoughton Division, who made a very interesting reply to the various criticisms which had been addressed to his Department on the subject, took rather an optimistic view of the efforts which had been made to obtain the necessary supply of horses in South Africa. Of course the noble Lord must be understood as referring to the middle stages of the war—about, say, the months of February and March last. Before the time when Lord Roberts's control came into full effect the efforts to obtain a supply of Cape horses were not exhausted. Whether they were exhausted after that date he greatly doubted, because the experience of the last few months showed that there was still a great reserve available in the north-western districts of Cape Colony, and even in some parts of the Orange River Colony, and also in Natal, and in parts of the Transvaal which were under our control. He thought something more might have been done earlier by sending some intelligent buyers into those parts. The noble Lord stated that English horses had done best during the campaign. The hon. Member supposed that was subject to the condition that they had a sufficient supply of food they could eat. The difficulty about horses foreign to South Africa was that the supply of food was 1115 so scant, so different from that to which they were accustomed at home, that they could not be nourished upon it. The advantage of having Cape horses and ponies was that they nourished themselves upon what appeared to be almost a barren country. They were placed out at night and they managed to get food where an English, Australian, or Canadian horse could not find a mouthful. Another advantage possessed by the native horses was their capacity for avoiding the numerous holes, obstacles, stones, and other troubles which, in that enormous open country, were met with in the course of the campaign. A native horse avoided a hole by instinct, whereas a foreign horse put his foot into it and broke his leg. This ought to have been perfectly well known to hundreds of officers before the war, and yet very slight effort was made to obtain these horses, which were there in thousands. He thought the amount of money spent on horses out of South Africa had been unnecessarily large. A large number of experienced buyers should have been earlier in the field. In this way a great part of the expense would have been saved. It would be very interesting to know from the War Office the comparative cost of the horses purchased in various countries, and also the cost of the transport, which was a very heavy item indeed. He doubted if it would work out at much less than £50 apiece all round. This question of horses was a remarkable illustration of the truth of the old adage that "You may spoil the ship for a ha'p'orth of tar." If we ran similar risks, in case of war with a great European Power, we might find that we had spent not only £6,000,000, the greater part of which might have been saved, and £100,000,000 on a war which might easily have been managed for £30,000,000; but, in addition to the enormous expenditure, we might find that we had suffered great national and Imperial disaster. This above all was the lesson the late expenditure on foreign horseflesh taught. It was a crime and a blunder of the worst kind ever to sacrifice in questions of war the military position to the political, as had been done in South Africa. He hoped the mistake would be never again repeated.
§ *SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT (continuing)
said he was trying to draw a general conclusion from the extraordinary expenditure on horses in this Vote, but he would not pursue that ject further. He hoped the Government would hear in mind that great facilities and encouragement should he given to breeders in England, Ireland, and Scotland wherever good horses could be reared. He admired the ingenuity of the hon. Member who made his conscientious objections to the war tally with his desire to have larger orders for Irish horses. He quite sympathised with the hon. Member's wish in that matter. While South African horses were by far the best in their native country, they would not be suitable for a European campaign. In a country not so and there was not the slightest doubt that English and Irish horses would be very much better. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Forest of Dean that too much stress was laid upon the question of the weight of our cavalry mounts. It was far more a question of nourishment. He saw General French's forces when they arrived at Kimberley, and afterwards at Paardeburg, and the condition of the horses was absolutely deplorable, not on account of the weight carried or the distance travelled, but on account of the want of food. The average Boer weighed one or two stones heavier than the British soldier, and he carried more ammunition than our soldiers. He hoped the Government would take every precaution to see that the Army did not suffer in future campaigns through want of prevision in regard to the supply of horses.
§ *MR. TULLY (Leitrim, S.)
said the increase in the expenditure on horses during the past few years was startling. In the Estimates for 1899–1900 the total amount was £125,000; in 1900–1901 it was £2,100,000; and now, so far as he could make out, it was £5,500,000. There was an enormous difference between the first and the last-mentioned figures. The noble Lord the Under Secretary for War seemed to feel amused at that, but it was not very amusing 1117 for the taxpayers. It struck the hon. Member that to make up the difference there must have been a good deal of blundering, and perhaps plundering. He did not think all that money could have been honestly applied. He agreed with the hon. Member for the Ecclesall Division that if £500,000 had been spent earlier they would not have been asked to vote so large an amount now. It occurred to him that they had not got the proper explanation as to why so much money had been wasted on horses. It was all very well to plead the stress of the war. The stress of the war had been used to cover a good many acts which could not be very well defended in public. He heard a Liberal Member state in the House that he was in the Argentine when the Government buyers were there purchasing horses, and that the Government buyers selected the most inferior class of horses, and did not buy the ordinary class of Argentine horses. They gave the full price he supposed that was stated in the Returns sent to the War Office. It occurred to him that one reason why the Government buyers were anxious to get to the Argentine was that they could very easily buy inferior horses there and pay a nominal high price, and that this would not be detected so readily as if the transaction had been done in Ireland or England. He thought the Committee were not satisfied as to the reason for sending buyers to the Argentine while famous horse-breeding districts in Ireland were entirely neglected, and no effort made to purchase the horses that could be got there. Very many of the Argentine horses, probably three-fourths of them, were unrideable, and they were almost as vicious as the, most vicious mule. It appeared to him that most of the money here asked for had been wasted. Instead of a sufficient number of horses being purchased at the beginning of the war they were sent out in driblets, with the result that they were continually being used up and more asked for. Ireland had ground for very serious complaint in the manner she had been passed over in the matter of the purchase of horses. The Government seemed to have the same animus towards Irish horses as towards Irish Members. It had been stated that one of the reasons more horses were not bought in Ireland 1118 was the attitude of the Irish people towards the policy of the Government. But the Germans were as great pro-Boers as the Irish, and yet the Government would go to Germany for bad guns, while they refused to go to Ireland for good horses. The Government buyers raked the ends of the earth for horses, but nobody went to the western parts of Ireland, where some of the best horses for this purpose were to be obtained. The destruction of a large number of horses was due to the careless handling by the mounted troops. The Boers had always been particularly careful in that respect. When the Irish Brigade arrived at Pretoria and were received by President Kruger, instead of delivering to them a speech clothed in sentimental language, the President surprised them by making a short practical speech on the necessity of taking care of their horses. If the British troops had had a homily of a similar kind probably a large portion of the waste would have been prevented.
§ SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLE (Camberwell, Dulwich)
said he had been asking for some time that an inquiry should be held regarding the horses bought in Austro-Hungary in the spring of last year and the winter of 1899. From letters he had seen, it appeared that the agents sent from this country bought, right and left, horses of the very worst description, and made from £10 to £15 apiece on them. He was convinced that many of the disasters in the early part of the war were entirely due to the inferior animals that were sent out. With regard to future action, the demand made by the Government was for five-year-old horses at about £25. That was an impossible price at which to rear horses in Ireland or England. The age also was much too high. Draught-horses were used by farmers when they were only two years old. If the Government intended to go in for breeding themselves, it was not necessary to have large studs all over the country. Farmers in all parts of the country could breed thoroughly good horses, but the Government must pay the price. Ho suggested that horses should be bought at three years of age, not to be put at once into hard, active military work, but for use in barracks, where they would walk and trot about and be well 1119 fed. They would very well carry soldiers on parade at that age, and the difference of a year or two would save nearly £20 to the farmer. In Germany one and a quarter millions of money was spent every year by the Government in rearing and improving the breed of horses, and the same system could very well be adopted in England. As one who went in very largely for breeding both thoroughbreds and draught-horses, he would be very glad to give the authorities any information he could if they would make an inquiry into these matters.
§ *MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE (Bristol, E.)
said that he had recently had an opportunity of conversing with a gentleman whose experience of Basuto ponies was very great, and from him he gathered that, while at the beginning of the war a certain quantity of the ponies had been bought in Basuto-land, the purchases ceased at a very early stage of the operations, and no renewed attempt had been made until quite lately, although during the whole time the Boers were taking over the frontier, without the knowledge of the authorities, large numbers of these ponies for their own use. That was an instance of a great horse supply being untapped by the British Government, while at the same time it was being largely drawn upon by the army to which they were opposed. With regard to the Cape horses, there had been a difficulty, whether well or ill founded he could not say, in procuring horses to remount the cavalry and for the purposes of transport. But that difficulty was not in consequence of there being no horses at the Cape, but because the authorities had not taken the means to procure such horses as there were. Very clear proof had been given that there were any quantity of horses in the Cape. Since the beginning of the year nearly 10,000 horses had been captured from the enemy—so far as the newspaper reports were correct—and in addition a very large number had been purchased at the Cape for the supply of the Army. Why was not that supply drawn upon but year and at the end of 1899? The Committee were told that the military authorities were not able to purchase the horses. But in a great many districts martial law had been in force, 1120 and under that martial law horses could have been obtained as they were being obtained at present. The policy of destroying farmhouses was adopted in order to reduce the enemy to submission. A very much better policy would have been to commandeer their horses, as that would not only have deprived the enemy of their mobility but would have supplied the British Army with a possibility of movement which they did not then possess. Last year a number of regiments were returned to the House as being in a state of efficiency as cavalry regiments. At the time that statement was made there was in Ireland a cavalry regiment which had a complement of nearly 700 men, but only seventeen horses. To return such a body of men as efficient was absurd.
§ *MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE
The actual date was January, 1900, and the regiment was the King's Dragoon Guards.
§ *MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE
said that his complaint was that the horses were being swept from this and other countries to the Cape, when at that very moment there were at the Cape thousands of horses now being utilised, and the interruption of the Secretary of State proved his case. It was very necessary that horses should be in a fit condition for work, but very often they were taken off the ship after a three weeks or a month's voyage and put straightaway into badly constructed horseboxes or open cattle-trucks, exposed to all the inclemencies of the weather, taken five or eight days journey up-country, and then turned out on the veldt. To put horses to work in that soft and unfed condition did not add to the efficiency of the Army. The horses relied upon for the movement and concentration of troops were not fit to do a day's work, and in many cases they died by the score straight off. The hon. Member instanced a case where 200 or 300 horses were detrained on the way up and put into a kraal in charge of four Kaffir boys and a non-commissioned officer. It was practically impossible that under such 1121 circumstances the horses could be looked alter or even fed. What was the good of concentrating all those horses at one particular spot? It would have been much better to have taken a smaller number of the horses and had them properly looked after and attended to, and sent to the front in a fit condition, even though they were a week or a fortnight later. As an old soldier he welcomed the speech of the Secretary of State. It was necessary that the responsibility for mistakes should be placed on the right shoulders, not in order to inflict punishment upon particular officers, but to deter others from committing similar errors upon subsequent occasions. Another point in connection with the money asked for was that a large amount of it had been spent on the purchase of mules. According to a Consular Report, no less than 23,000 mules were shipped to South Africa from New Orleans alone. A scheme had been foreshadowed under which horse-farms were to be established either in Canada, Australia, or elsewhere, but no provision had been made for the breeding of mules. The mule, however, was the most useful of all transport animals, and he had had experience of its great value both for riding and draught purposes. He wished to enforce upon the notice of the Secretary of State for War, seeing the climatic conditions under which the troops were often called upon to serve, the necessity of providing as great a quantity of mules as was possible. In a great many places it was almost impossible to make use of horses with advantage where it was perfectly possible to make use of mules. He hoped the Secretary of State for War would not lose sight of that matter. They had to thank him for the close attention he had given to administrative reform, and not the least of those reforms was the provision of remounts for the Army.
§ *MAJOR BAGOT (Westmorland, Kendal)
said that probably in modern times there had never been such a great loss of horses as had occurred during the present campaign in South Africa. Undoubtedly it would have been a great advantage if they had had a large supply of horses in the country when the war began, but that was not the case. They had been compelled to buy an enormous amount of horses during an emergency. 1122 It had been suggested that the Government ought to have bought up all the horses available in Cape Colony immediately before the war, but no doubt there would have been many objections raised to the collecting of a large number of horses which the Boers would have seen could only have been got together for one particular purpose. Undoubtedly under the circumstances which occurred in the summer of 1899, whilst most delicate negotiations were going on, it would have been exceedingly difficult for the Government at that time to have set to work buying horses in South Africa. He held the opinion that the chief opposition to such a course would have come from hon. Members opposite. Horses had to be collected from all parts of the world and sent out to South Africa, and great losses had occurred. The Member for the Forest of Dean, who had given great attention to this subject, had stated that the transport arrangements were very bad, but from personal observation he was able to say that the transport arrangements were not so bad as had been alleged. They were sending out 6,000 horses a week at one time, and the arrangements for landing them were certainly not bad. Horses which had been on the sea for three weeks could not be expected to be in good condition, but it was remarkable in what good condition the horses were landed under the circumstances. He did not think there was that scarcity of men to look after them as had been complained of, for a very few men could look after a large number of horses in the enclosed camps in South Africa. The hon. Baronet opposite had mentioned Kaffirs as rather superfluous for this work, but the Kaffir who took charge of horses was, as a rule, a first-rate man, and was very often as good as half a dozen of some others. He did not think blame could be attached to the transport arrangements or to the condition of the horses before they were sent up country, but as they had to get this large number of horses at an emergency, whether fit or not, and send them straight up into the country, that undoubtedly was the cause of this extraordinary loss. The horses were in a poor condition, and it is admitted that the English horses undoubtedly stood the strain better than those horses from the 1123 the Argentine and other places. The great mortality among the horses undoubtedly arose from the scarcity of food and the fact that it was absolutely necessary to send them up country in trains by a single line of railway before the animals had a chance of getting into condition after their voyage. As it was not possible before the war to secure the horses in South Africa, it was not fair to attribute mismanagement to the War Office or to the people who had charge of affairs in South Africa. He agreed that they ought to have bought the horses in South Africa before the war began, but, as he had stated before, there were a great many difficulties in the way, and it was not fair to attribute blame to the War Office in this respect.
§ MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)
thought the House ought to have a better explanation as to why they should be called upon at the close of the financial year to vote £2,000,000 for remounts. There was a widespread feeling in the country that there was something unpleasant about the large purchases of horses in the Argentine, and that there had been an abuse in regard to the contracts for the purpose of horses in that country. The sum required now was enormous for this one Vote, which covered transport and remounts, the net total for the present year being £19,800,000. That was an appalling sum. He noticed the other day when a question was put to the Financial Secretary to the War Office as to the price paid for horses in the Argentine, the Financial Secretary declared that it was not consistent with the interest of the public service to state the price. That was a most extraordinary thing, because the price paid there was a matter of public knowledge in the Argentine, and it could not be denied by the noble Lord that hundreds of people in the Argentine Republic knew the price paid for these horses by the British Government. Surely those who had sold the horses must know, and in the Argentine Republic the man in the street would be able to tell them what price the British Government had paid for the horses. It was a significant fact that the British House of Commons, which had to pay for these horses, were refused information as to the price. He could understand the Government taking up 1124 that position if it were possible for a moment to argue that this matter could be kept secret. It was perfectly ludicrous, for they must have bought from a large number of horse-dealers, and therefore, it was an extraordinary position for the noble Lord to take up to decline to inform the British House of Commons what price had been paid. He was not a "horsey" man, but the hon. Member for South Fermanagh, who was a "horsey" man, and was one of the oldest members of the Fermanagh Hunt, had just informed him that he had a horse to dispose of, which he could confidently recommend to any officer in the British Army. Personally, he could not distinguish a horse worth £10 from one which was worth £100, and he was speaking on this subject simply from the point of view of the man in the street The sum of £19,800,000 was an appalling sum for transport and remounts. The taxpayers of the country were entitled to examine the use to which this money was put, and insist upon such information being given as would assure them that the money had been well spent. They required some better assurance that the money had not gone corruptly into the pockets of the contractors and other men who were making millions of money by transport arrangements and the purchase of stores and horses.
With regard to the question of Argentine horses, the information he had gathered from the public press had made a strong impression upon his mind that, practically speaking, the enormous number of horses brought from the Argentine Republic had been a disastrous failure, for not one in ten of those horses had been of any value whatever, and the enormous sums of money spent upon them had been absolutely thrown away. He had been reading an account of the formation of the Colenbrander Scouts Corps known as Kitchener's Fighting Scouts. What did John Colenbrander say about the horse supply a month ago? He said that he attributed the efficiency of his scouts to the fact that they were not treated like a British regiment, and that out of every twenty horses offered them they rejected nineteen. They were allowed to have the pick of the horses. If that was true, it showed a very bad state of things, and would give grounds for the belief that millions of money had 1125 been wasted in the purchase of remounts. There was one extraordinary thing which puzzled him more than anything else in this war. According to the Estimates, they had spent millions of pounds in addition to all the resources of the British Empire before the war broke out. He would very much like to find out how much the Boers had spent in remounts. He would venture to say that the Boers had not spent £200,000 during the whole course of the war in remounts, and yet they had out distanced us all the time. The British Army had an enormous stock of horses to begin with, and they afterwards spent £8,000,000 on remounts, and now they were asked to vote £2,000,000 more. He did not suppose the Boers had spent £1,000,000 on the whole war, as against the £130,000,000 spent by us. He thought they were entitled to inquire how this had occurred. He was reading the other day with very great interest a Blue-book containing a number of despatches from British generals in South Africa which had been for a long time withheld. A portion of that Blue-book contained a lecture on geography from Lord Roberts, in which he explained certain facts which were already known to the school children in Ireland in regard to the area of the Transvaal and Cape Colony. That information was to be found in a 1s. 6d. geography, and it did not need any Blue-books to explain it. This information was set forth by Lord Roberts to account for the extraordinary difficulties that he had to encounter in endeavouring to conquer the Boer territories. Their difficulty was to find out where the Boers were. Their object was to catch the Boers if they could, and if they were on the track of De Wet, surely the largeness of the country would not allow him to get away it their horses were as good as his. He had followed the war with great interest, for he had never read of a case before where 30,000 farmers had been able to fight 200,000 soldiers. His reading of the case was that it had taken one and a half years for the British generals on the spot to learn the interesting fact that ten English soldiers were only as good as one Boer. This fact was beginning to be realised now.
He had listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War with interest, but he doubted whether he would be able to carry 1126 out all the reforms to which he had referred. Lately an attempt had been made to kick all the Irish Members out of the House of Commons, and it seemed to be thought necessary that they should al be locked up in the Clock Tower. They evidently forget that the present Commander-in-Chief and the late Commander-in-Chief were both Irishmen. [An Hon MEMBER: He is an Ulster man.] That was the hen. Member's idea of geography, but Lord Wolseley came from the county of Cork and Lord Roberts from the county of Waterford. The hon. Member's geography seemed to be rather at fault. The speech of the Secretary of State for War was a very a able one, but judging from his study as an ignorant man in the street it appeared to him that the real moral of that speech was that they wanted more brain power. He had spoken of many things that were required, but what they really wanted was more brains. A system which required a man to possess an income of £500 a year before he could be a British officer was certainly not a satisfactory state of things. The real trouble seemed to him to be that they did not realise that brains were necessary in order to provide the horses. If they had had the brains at the head of affairs in South Africa they would have got the horses in time. The real trouble was that it took them a whole year before it dawned upon the minds of their British generals that they wanted two or three horses to each man in order to deal with the Boers. What astonished him throughout the whole of this discussion was that they appeared to think they had done the most extraordinary feat of arms by holding their own in South Africa for one and a half years, although their numbers were ten to one as compared with the Boers. They had sent out 270,000 men, and they thought that they had done something extraordinary. He had never been a file to understand why it was that an equal force of British troops ought not to be more than a match for an equal number of Boers. It had been said that they were fighting m a large and a strange country, but that was not a Very satisfying excuse.
He entirely dissociated himself from those of his colleagues who had found fault with the Government for not buying Irish horses for this war. As an Irish Nationalist Member he fell no grievance 1127 that Irish horses were not bought. He hated this war and everything connected with it, and he had no desire to sell Irish horses or anything else in order to make a profit out of it, because he believed all such profit would bring with it a curse. So strong was his objection to the war that he would rather not see an Irish horse, or Irish soldier, used in it. But he objected to the taxpayers' money being used to defray "the cost of provisions and allowances in lieu of provisions," which was one of the items in the Vote. It was notorious that the Boer army had for a whole year lived almost entirely off these provisions. What explanation was going to be offered for the strategy of British generals which resulted in provisioning the Boer army at the expense of the taxpayers of this country? As an individual taxpayer he did not profess that this was a very great grievance. He honestly confessed that he would not object to the tax if it was going to provision the Boers rather than the British Army. But the ordinary taxpayer ought to know the reason why enormous convoys and provision trains were captured every week by the Boers. Why, a quarter of this Vote was for provisioning Botha, Delarey, and De Wet. The Secretary for War ought to give some explanation of this. No doubt Lord Kitchener had been evacuating a large part of the Transvaal territory and concentrating his troops along the railway line. But why should not Lord Kitchener retire from Bloemfontein and Pretoria and come back to the Cape? [An Hon. Member: Question.] That was the question, and he supported it by moving that the Vote be reduced by £1,000,000.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a reduced sum, not exceeding £2,000,000, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Dillon.)
§ LORD STANLEY
said he did not intend to follow the hon. Member for East Mayo as to what Lord Kitchener should do. As to the question before the Committee, the money embraced in the Vote was required to pay for horses that had been taken in South Africa and which were mounted by the local levies there, and also for the mounted troops they were sending out as reinforcements, and, in addition, to provide extra horses over those required for the 1128 moment, in order to have a reserve to fall back upon. The hon. Member talked of the Argentine horses, and asked that the price paid for them should be given to the Committee. He declined to state the prices paid for Argentine horses, because so long as purchases were going on it was not in the public interest that the prices they were paying should be mentioned. Some horses had been got in Cape Colony lately from the districts where martial law had been proclaimed. There had been no attempt in any way to conceal the prices, of hon. Members who alleged that the Government had been deliberately swindled in the purchase of horses would bring forward specific instances be should be glad to go into them. He could assure the Committee that there was not the slightest wish or intention on the part of his right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War or himself to conceal any deficiencies that had arisen in this matter, and there was not one of them that would not be turned to good account, he hoped, in any future war in which they might unfortunately be engaged. An hon. Member said that they ought to encourage the breeding of English horses, and not establish stud farms in Canada and South Africa. His own idea was to distribute well-bred mares to the farmers and for the Government to get the produce for the purposes of the Army. [An IRISH MEMBER: And Ireland?] Certainly, Ireland too. He bad, he hoped, answered all the questions put to him, and he could assure the Committee once more that he had no desire to conceal anything.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON (Dundee)
Except the prices. How many horses were there in this purchase of remounts to the amount of two millions?
§ LORD STANLEY
I am not going to tell the hon. Member anything from which he can find out the prices. The remounts include, besides horses, mules and trek oxen.
§ MR. COURTENAY WARNER
said that what they wanted was an assurance that the system under which the horses were landed at Port Elizabeth, the want of care when they were landed, and the way in which they had been sent up to the front, so that 90 per cent. of them died, would be put a stop to. It had been 1129 said that the horses had been well landed at Cape Town, but they had sure information that it was very different at Port Elizabeth; that there horses had been landed with broken legs, and that many had been put into trucks and sent up country at once, some of them remaining in the trucks for eight days without food or water.
§ MR. BRODRICK
I can easily give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance asked for. The whole question has been gone into most carefully, and the practice hitherto prevailing has been stopped. The horses are now being most carefully looked after.
§ MR. COURTENAY WARNER
said that was what they had been asking for. At Cape Town, he believed, there was an immense collection of provisions and stores. Now there was a danger of the plague being carried by the stores, and that was a very serious question. He would like to have some assurance that these stores were being kept purified and not sent to the troops all over South Africa in a contaminated state. [Laughter.] It was not exactly a laughing matter; that was exactly the way in which the plague was spread.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON
said that when he was putting his question to the hon. Gentleman in regard to the number of horses which were wanted he was not speaking without book. He had a letter on the subject from a gallant officer at the front, which perhaps the Committee would allow him to read. It was dated 6th January, 1901, and the officer recited a most dismal story in regard to the state of the Army, which would not be relevant to the present discussion. But in regard to the horses he used language consistent with that employed by the hon. Member below the gangway. He said—We want at least another 100,000 horses, not skin or hair trunks, but horses, Up to date the consumption of horseflesh has reached the enormous total of 250,000. This includes horses presently in use. The remounts have been bad, very, and in each case wherever the War Office buys horses they buy them £10 under market price, getting a bad driving animal instead of a useful riding animal.That letter was not addressed to him, but had been put into his hands.
§ LORD STANLEY
said he could not give the actual number of horses required at the front at the present moment. As to price, he had always said that every one thought he could buy horses better and cheaper than the War Office. In providing horses for South Africa the War Office was not guided by private letters from one individual to another, but by the requisitions of Lord Kitchener, and every requisition Lord Kitchener made would be met to the full and, if possible, reserve kept over.
§ MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)
said there was more than met the eye in regard to this matter. Perhaps if it were left to the noble Lord he might tell them all about these horses and what they cost. But the War Office sent out people to buy horses, and these people bought horses and sold them to the Government at a higher price, and thus made plenty of money. Why did not the noble Lord tell the Committee how it was that these horses, which the hon. Member declared were wretched animals, cost two millions? The other day he met a very impecunious friend of his, who came up and shook him so warmly by the hand that he was naturally under the impression his friend was going to borrow money. But he appeared to be doing well. "What are you doing," he asked his friend, who replied, smiling, "Oh, selling horses to the Government." It was very necessary that they should look into these Votes. He had heard the late Secretary for War say, in another place, that the late Commander-in-Chief was not a man of business, and the next speaker said that the late Secretary for War was not a man of business. If that was the way things were carried on why should they, in appeals to patriotism, vote two millions? He should be prepared to vote against the Government, because he had not received sufficient information from the noble Lord to enable him to say that they had only been reasonably "done" in the matter.
§ *MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE
asked if it was true that 24,000 mules and 43,000 horses had been shipped to South Africa from New Orleans, as stated in the British Consul's Report, at an average cost of £20 apiece?
§ MR. JOHN BURNS (Battersea)
said he hoped the noble Lord would pay more attention to the stores which were being returned from South Africa. Several sanitary authorities in Great Britain and Ireland had recently had cause to suspect a number of ships from South Africa in connection with the plague, and at this moment he believed the Local Government Board was arranging a conference between the Metropolitan Asylums Board and the Loudon County Council, in order to spend a large sum of money to meet any emergency. But apart from the Army, if they got even a suspicion of plague in the Port of London—if there were only four or live cases well established—the damage that that would do to English trade in a month or two might amount to four or five millions of money in solid cash. He appealed, therefore, to the noble Lord to pay every attention to the stopping of the importation of infected stores which, after having been
§ condemned at the Cape, were brought back to this country to be sold again and redistributed in this country. If he would do this he would not only save the Army a good deal of trouble, but he would also prevent a panic in London.
§ LORD STANLEY
I quite sympathise with what has been said by the hon. Member for Battersea, and anything that I can possibly do in the matter shall be done. I believe the sanitary authorities at Cape Town are taking every step in their power to prevent any means of contagion; but if it is wished, I am sure my right hon. friend will wire special instructions to the military authorities to take every precaution in conjunction with the sanitary authorities.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 41; Noes, 185. (Division List No. 50.)1133
|Ambrose, Robert||Jordan. Jeremiah||O'Malley, William|
|Boland, John||Joyce, Michael||O'Mara, James|
|Burns, John||Kennedy, Patrick James||O'Shanghnessy, P. J. Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Labouchere, Henry||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Cogan, Denis J.||M'Dermott, Patrick||Reddy, M.|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Murphy, J.||Redmond, JohnE. (Waterford)|
|Delany, William||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Dillon, John||Nolan, Col. Jn. P. (Galway, N.)||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Duffy, William J.||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Roche, John|
|Farrell, James Patrick||O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'ryMid||Sullivan, Donal|
|Flynn, James Christopher||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Tully, Jasper|
|Hammond, John||O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)|
|Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Hayden. John Patrick||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)||Mr. Patrick O'Brien and Mr. Haviland-Burke.|
|Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N|
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.||Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Cranborne, Viscount|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Carlile, William Walter||Cubitt, Hon. Henry|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Causton, Richard Knight||Dalkeith, Earl of|
|Allen, C. P. (Glouc., Stroud)||Cautley, Henry Strother||Dalrymple, Sir Charles|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Cavendish, VCW (Derbyshire)||Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)|
|Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Davies, M.Vaughan-(Cardigan|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Cecil) Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Dewar, JohnA. (lnverness-sh.)|
|Akinson, Rt. Hon. John||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.||Dowar, T. R. (T'rH'mlets, SGeo.|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy||Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r||Dickinson, Hubert Edmund|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Chapman, Edward||Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r||Charrington, Spencer||Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)||Clare, Octavius Leigh||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers|
|Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol||Cochrane, Hon. Thus. H. A. E.||Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin|
|Bigwood, James||Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Edwards, Frank|
|Black, Alexander William||Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward|
|Bond, Edward||Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Colville, John||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst|
|Bullard, Sir Harry||Cook, Frederick Lucas||Finch, George H.|
|Butcher, John George||Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne|
|Caldwell, James||Craig, Robert Hunter||Fisher, William Hayes|
|Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon||Leveson-Gower, Frederick N S.||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Forster, Henry William||Levy, Maurice||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol,S)||Ropner, Colonel Robert|
|Fuller, J. M. F.||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Garfit, William||Lowther, C. (Cumbr, Eskdale)||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Gibbs. Hn. Vicary (St.Albans)||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Seton-Karr, Henry|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)|
|Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick||Lucas, Reginald J. (Port-mouth||Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)|
|Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin & Nairn)||Macdona, John Cumming||Skewes-Cox, Thomas|
|Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)||M'Crae, George||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East|
|Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||Majendie, James A. H.||Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)|
|Green, Walford D (Wednesbury||Malcolm, Ian||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Greene, Sir E W (B'rySEdm'nds||Manners, Lord Cecil||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Griffith, Ellis J.||Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Guthrie, Walter Murray||Milner, Rt Hon. Sir Fred. G.||Stanley. Lord (Lanes.)|
|Haldane, Richard Burdon||Molesworth, Sir Lewis||Stroyan, John|
|Iiamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Mid'x||Moore, William (Antrim, N.)||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'derry||More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire||Sturt. Hon. Humphry Napier|
|Hardy, Laurence (K'nt, Ashford||Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Harmsworth, R. Leicester||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Taylor, Theodore Cooke|
|Haslett, Sir James Horner||Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.||Valentia, Viscount|
|Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-||Morton, Arthur H. A. (Dept'ford||Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)|
|Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir A. D.||Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)||Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.|
|Heath, A. Howard (Hanley)||Mount. William Arthur||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T|
|Heath, James (Stafford, N.W.)||Murray, Rt. Hn A Graham (Bute||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney|
|Helder, Augustus||Nicholson, William Graham||Webb, Col. William George|
|Helme, Norval Watson||Nicol, Donald Ninian||Weir, James Calloway|
|Henderson, Alexander||Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Higginbottom, S. W.||Paulton, James Mellor||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth|
|Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)||Peel, Hn. Wm Rohert Wellesley||Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)|
|Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside||Pemberton, John S. G.||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry||Platt-Higgins, Frederick||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Howard, Capt. J (Kent, Faversh||Pretyman, Ernest George||Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid.)|
|Johnston, William (Belfast)||Purvis, Robert||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)||Randles, John S||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N)|
|Kearley, Hudson E.||Ratcliffe, R. F.||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Lawson, John Grant||Remnant, James Farquharson||Young, Commander (Berks, E.)|
|Layland-Barratt, Francis||Rentoul, James Alexander|
|Lee, Capt. A H (Hants. Fareham||Renwick, George||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington||Richards, Henry Charles||Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Leigh, Sir Joseph||Ridley, Hn M. W. (Staley bridge|
|Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie||Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas Thomson|
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ Mr. DILLON
said it appeared to him that this Vote had been fully and fairly discussed, and he did not wish to prolong the discussion any further. He had, however, made up his mind that he would allow no Vote in support
§ of this war to pass without a challenge. He thought, therefore, that they might now proceed to the division on the whole Vote.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 184; Noes, 38. (Division List No. 51.)1135
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.||Bullard, Sir Harry||Cook, Frederick Lucas|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Butcher, John George||Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Caldwell, James||Craig, Robert Hunter|
|Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc, Stroud||Campbell-Bannerman, Sir II.||Cranborne, Viscount|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Carlne, William Walter||Cubitt, Hon. Henry|
|Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis||Causton, Richard Knight||Dalkeith, Earl of|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Cautley, Henry Strother||Dalrymple, Sir Charles|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire||Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Dewar, John A. Inverness-sh|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r||Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.||Dewar, T R (T'rH'mlets, S. Geo.|
|Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds||Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r||Dickinson, Robert Edmond|
|Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol||Chapman, Edward||Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles|
|Bell, Richard||Charrington, Spencer||Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield|
|Bigwood, James||Clare, Octavius Leigh||Disraeli, Coningsbv Ralph|
|Black, Alexander, William||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Dorington, Sir John Edward|
|Bond, Edward||Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-|
|Brand, Hon. Arthur G.||Colomlb, Sir John Charles Ready||Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John||Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Edwards, Frank|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Lee, Cap. A. H. (Hants. Fareh'm||Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Staly bridge|
|Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J. (Manc'r||Leose,Sir Joseph F. (Accrington||Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.|
|Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Leigh, Sir Joseph||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Finch, George H.||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Carrie||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S||Ropner, Colonel Robert|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Levy, Maurice||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Fitzroy, Hon Edward Algernon||Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.||Seton-Karr, Henry|
|Forster, Henry William||Loug, Rt Hn. Walter Bristol, S)||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)|
|Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.|
|Fuller, J. M. F.||Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)||Skewes-Cox, Thomas|
|Garfit, William||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)|
|Gibbs. Hn. Vicary (St. Albans||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)||Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John||Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth)||Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick||Macdona, John Camming||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn||MCalmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)||M'Crae, George||Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)|
|Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon||Majendie, James A. H.||Stroyan, John|
|Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'ry||Malcolm, Ian||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Greene, Sir E. W. (B'ySEdm'ds.||Manners, Lord Cecil||Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier|
|Griffith, Ellis J.||Maxwell. W J H (Dumfriesshire||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Guthrie, Walter Murray||Molesworth, Sir Lewis||Tabot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'dUniv.|
|Hamilton, Rt Hon Ld. G (Midd'x||Moore, William (Antrim, X.)||Taylor, Theodore Cooke|
|Hamilton, Marq. of (L'donderry||More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)||Valentia, Viscount|
|Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd||Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)||Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)|
|Harmsworth, R. Leicester||Morgan. J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.|
|Haslett, Sir James Horner||Morris, Hn. Martin Henry F.||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-||Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney|
|Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.||Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)||Webb, Colonel Wm. George|
|Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanl'y||Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute||Weir, James Galloway|
|Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.||Nicholson, William Graham||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Helder, Augustus||Nicol, Donald Ninian||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Helme, Norval Watson||Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay||Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)|
|Henderson, Alexander||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter||Paulton, James Mellor||Wilson', A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Higginbottom, S. W.||Peel, Hn Wm Robert Wellesley||Wilson, Fred W. (Norfolk, Mid.|
|Hope, J. F. (Shef'ld, Brightside||Pemberton, John S. G.||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry||Pretyman, Ernest George||Wilson, J. W. (Worcester, N.)|
|Howard, Capt. J (Kent, Faversh||Purvis, Robert||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Johnston, William (Belfast)||Randles, John S.||Young, Commander (Berks, E.)|
|Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.||Ratcliffe, R. F.|
|Kearley, Hudson E.||Remnant, James Farquharson||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Lawrence, William F.||Rentoul, James Alexander||Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Lawson, John Grant||Renwick, George|
|Layland-Barratt, Francis||Richards, Henry Charles|
|Ambrose, Robert||Jordan, Jeremiah||O Mara, James|
|Boland, John||Joyce, Michael||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Burns, John||Kennedy, Patrick James||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||M'Dermott, Patrick||Reddy, M.|
|Cogan, Denis J.||Murphy, J.||Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Delany, William||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Dillon. John||O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'y, Mid||Roche, John|
|Duffy, William J.||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Sullivan, Donal|
|Farrell, James Patrick||O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)||Tully, Jasper|
|Flynn, James Christopher||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)|
|Hammond, John||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil||O'Kelly, J. (Roscommon, N.)||Mr. Patrick O'Brien and Mr. Haviland-Burke.|
|Hayden, John Patrick||O'Malley, William|
Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn"—(Mr. Balfour)—put, and agreed to.
§ 2. £100, Supplementary, Ordnance Factories.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
I think it would be extremely convenient if the House would at once grant us this Vote, and if this course is agreed to I will then move the adjournment of the House. Some of us, at all events, have earned a good night's rest.
§ Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.
§ Adjourned accordingly at half after Eleven of the clock till Monday next.