§ 1. "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 450,000, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1902."
§ 2. "That a sum, not exceeding £21,657,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Pay, Allowances, and other Charges of His Majesty's Army at Home and Abroad (exclusive of India) (General Staff, Regiments, Reserve, and Departments), which welcome in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1902."
§ Resolutions read a second time.
§ First Resolution:—
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
§ The House divided:— Ayes, 208; Noes, 55. (Division List No. 85.)
| Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. | Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Hardy, Laurence (K'nt, Ashf'rd | More, Robt. J. (Shropshire) | Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln) |
| Hare, Thomas Leigh | Morgan, David J. (Walthamst. | Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew) |
| Harmsworth, R. Leicester | Morgan, Hon. F. (Monmouthsh. | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Haslam, Sir Alfred S. | Morrell, George Herbert | Simeon, Sir Barrington |
| Hay, Hon. Claude George | Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F. | Sinclair, Louis (Romford) |
| Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley) | Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford) | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.) |
| Heath, Jas. (Staffords., N. W.) | Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport) | Smith, James P. (Lanarks.) |
| Henderson, Alexander | Moss, Samuel | Spear, John Ward |
| Hickman, Sir Alfred | Mount, William Arthur | Stanley, Hon. Arthur (O'msk'rk |
| Higginbottom, S. W. | Mowbray, Sir Rbt. Gray C. | Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) |
| Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside | Muntz, Philip A. | Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M. |
| Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.) | Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute | Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley |
| Murray, Charles J. (Coventry | ||
| Johnston, William (Belfast) | Murra'y, Col. Wyndham(Bath) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Joicey, Sir James | Taylor, Theodore Cooke | |
| Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) | Nicholson, William Graham | Thomas, F.Freeman-(Hastings |
| Nicol, Donald Ninian | Thomas, J. A. (Glam., Gower) | |
| Kearley, Hudson E. | Thornton, Percy M. | |
| Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop. | Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) | Tomkinson, James |
| King, Sir Henry Seymour | Parkes, Ebenezer | Tomlinson, W. Edw. Murray |
| Knowles, Lees | Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Pemberton, John S. G. | Tufnell, Col. Edward | |
| Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. | Percy, Earl | |
| Law, Andrew Bonar | Pirie, Duncan V. | Ure, Alexander |
| Lawrence, William F. | Platt-Higgins, Frederick | |
| Lawson, John Grant | Plummer, Walter R. | Valentia, Viscount |
| Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Pretyman, Ernest George | Walker, Col. William Hall |
| Leigh, Sir Joseph | Priestley, Arthur | Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E. |
| Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward | Wason, John C. (Orkney) |
| Leighton, Stanley | Pym, C. Guy | Weir, James Galloway |
| Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. | Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton | |
| Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. | Randies, John S. | Welb'y, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts |
| Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol S. | Rankin. Sir James | Whiteley, Geo. (York, W. R.) |
| Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) | Ratcliffe, R. F. | Whiteley, H. (Ashton u. Lyne) |
| Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft) | Reckitt, Harold James | William's, Col. R. (Dorset) |
| Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred | Remnant, James Farquharson | Willox, Sir John Archibald |
| Rentoul, James Alexander | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R. | |
| Macdona, John Cumming | Renwick, George | Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd |
| Maconochie, A. W. | Ridley, Hn. M. W (Stalybridge) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| M'Crae, George | Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green | Wrightson, Sir Thomas |
| M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) | Rigg, Richard | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Majendie, James A. H. | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) | |
| Malcolm, Ian | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) | Young, Commander (Berks, E.) |
| Martin, Richard Biddulph | Roe, Sir Thomas | |
| Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh. | Royds, Clement Molyneux | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther. |
| Melville, Beresford Valentine | ||
| Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- | |
| Molesworth, Sir Lewis | Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N. E. | Gilhooly, James | O'Dowd, John |
| Ambrose, Robert | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) | |
| Hammond, John | O'Kelly, J. (Roscommon, N.) | |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Hayden, John Patrick | O'Malley, William |
| Bell, Richard | Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- | O'Mara, James |
| Boyle, James | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | |
| Brigg, John | Jameson, Major J. Eustace | O'Shee, James John |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Joyce, Michael | |
| Kennedy, Patrick James | Power, Patrick Joseph | |
| Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) | ||
| Clancy, John Joseph | Leamy, Edmund | Reddy, M. |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Lough, Thomas | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Crean, Eugene | Lundon, W. | Redmond, William (Clare) |
| Cullinan, J. | MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. | Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) |
| M'Fadden, Edward | Roche, John | |
| Daly, James | M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) | |
| Doogan, P. C. | Murphy, J. | Sullivan, Donal |
| Duffy, William J. | ||
| Nannetti, Joseph P. | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) | |
| Farrell, James Patrick | Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) | |
| Ffrench, Peter | O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMd | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien. |
| Field, William | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | O'Doherty, William | |
| Flynn, James Christopher | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) |
§ Second Resolution:—
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMOND said his reason for interfering on this Vote was because when he called attention to a certain matter the other day for some reason or other his questions were absolutely ignored. He was, therefore, under the necessity of putting his questions again. He wished to call attention to the extraordinary increase in this Vote. If the British people were content to pay these increasing sums year after year they would soon find they would become an annual call, and there would be no ending to the course upon which they had entered. In the last five years the Army Estimates had almost doubled, and would in all probability, if the present policy were continued, be doubled again during the next five years. The Government of this country were animated by a wretched spirit of Imperialism, and the spectacle of Continental Powers draining their resources and starving their people to maintain huge standing armies was being followed in this country. It was impossible for England to imitate with success or rival the immense establishments on the Continent. It was an appalling thing for Irish Members to come there and see such enormous increases in the cost of the military establishments. Under the new arrangements there was to be an army corps in Ireland, but otherwise Ireland would get absolutely no return for the millions she was called upon to contribute towards these Estimates. The vast majority of the Irish people had shown by the attitude of their representatives in Parliament that they took no responsibility for the war in South Africa, which they considered was unnecessary and unjust, and it was their bounden duty to protest against it in every possible way. With regard to the Vote before the House, it would be the worst form of madness until the War Office had been reformed to trust the expenditure of this money to as incompetent a set of men as it was possible to imagine. They had got a new Secretary of War, but until the 816 reforms foreshadowed by him had been carried out and the whole system changed it was a very foolish thing for the people of this country to send good money after bad. The money voted last year and the year before had been squandered in a most reckless and extravagant way, bringing about defeats and disgraces in the field, and in all human probability the money they were now asked to vote would be spent just as badly and foolishly, and would be muddled away as in the past. In trying to rival Continental Powers they were departing from the best traditions of England and entering upon a course which would probably bring disaster and bankruptcy upon this country. The moral of his appearance this second time was that when he asked a question in a civil way he was entitled to a civil answer.
§ THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,) Lancashire, WesthoughtonI put down the hon. Member's questions upon the last occasion when this Vote was before the Committee to answer, but when I came to reply I found that the hon. Member had gone out of the House and was not in his place at the time, or I should have answered him.
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMOND said he acquitted the noble Lord of any act of discourtesy towards himself, but he was mistaken. As a matter of fact, he was in the House and heard the reply. He might have been sitting under the shade of the Gallery. When he asked questions in the future he would take the precaution to make himself as prominently visible as possible. A great many people outside the House and in the ranks of the Army were seriously waiting for an explanation how it came to pass that a certain section of the forces in the field in South Africa were receiving as much as 5s. a day, whereas the ordinary soldiers of His Majesty's Regular Army were receiving something in the neighbourhood of 1s. They had heard a good deal about the valour and bravery of the Dublin Fusiliers, the Welsh Fusiliers, the Connaught Rangers and the Gordon Highlanders, but what the 817 people wanted to know was how it was that the men of those heroic battalions, who suffered most in hardships and losses, had only been receiving the ordinary miserable pay of 1s. a day, whereas the troops from the colonies were receiving 5s. a day? That was a monstrous injustice. They heard a good many dreadful and miserable stories of returned soldiers, of men crippled for life, finding their way into the workhouse both in Ireland and in this country. There were hundreds of people in Ireland, men, women, and children, who were now in the direst distress in consequence of this cruel war. They heard these things in Ireland, and contrasted the misery of their people with the position of the men who came from the colonies, and were receiving what to the poor Irish peasants seemed the prince's pay of 5s. a day.
§ But his main reason for rising was to expose what he held to be a fraud on the part of those people who endeavoured to prove that because colonial troops had gone to South Africa, therefore the colonies were in sympathy with the war. It proved nothing of the sort. Ho had lived in Australia and read their papers, and he maintained that the mass of the people there were not in sympathy with the war, and that if a vote were asked in any Australian Parliament in aid of the war it would not be passed. "Oh," it would be said, "how was it, then, that so many thousand sons of the Empire came from every colony in Australia and from New Zealand to take their place in the campaign side by side with the troops of the British Army?" It was the 5s. a day. In Australia there were a great number of men who were accustomed to an open-air life, who were fond of riding and of wild, frontier-like life, and who, if you gave them a good horse, 5s. a day, and the prospect of some excitement, would go anywhere. If the War Office were to reduce the pay to 1s. a day, the same as that given to the Dublin Fusiliers and the Gordon Highlanders, they would see what the effect would be. Recruits would at once fall off. He wanted to know how many men were receiving 5s. a day, how much it came to, and who were getting it?
818§ MR. DALY (Monaghan, S.)supported his hon, friend in protesting against this very large Vote being passed at that hour of the morning. He did not wonder at the Government being forced into this unjust and unholy war, because there was such an amount of money spent in the dockyards, in the manufacture of arms, and in trade in England generally. The whole of the people of England were making money out of the war, while the people of Ireland did not get a sixpence. It was therefore the duty of the Irish Members to vote against this Vote. He saw that a million was to be paid to the I imperial Yeomanry, but if they all showed as little valour in the future! as they had done at Lindley he would not spend a shilling on them. He also saw that £650,000 was down for the colonial contingent. Now, in regard to this matter a great deal had been said as to the number of troops that had come from the colonies. So far as his memory went, this great number Only amounted to 600. He thought there would be no difficulty of getting 600 corner boys, gutter boys, or men, probably, discharged from gaol, who would go over to South Africa for 5s. a day—not being able to earn a living in the country where they were—while the unfortunate soldiers from this country were only getting 10d. or 1s. a day. He had heard the hon. Member talking of the patriotism of the men from the colonies, but it was a five-bob-a-day patriotism. If they had only offered one bob a day they would not have had a single man from Australia coining to South Africa to fight their battles. Instead of the war being over, as was said months ago, it was only beginning, because they were asked for four millions more money than last year. He would move the reduction of the Vote by five millions, by way of protest against this extraordinary increase in the money asked for the Army, and if the Government were defeated it would be a very satisfactory result. In fact, it would be a very proud achievement on his part, and very possibly the Government would be glad to get out of the situation. Considering all the bother on their hands they were in a most unenviable position, for the taxpayers of this country as well as in Ireland were up in a small rebellion 819 against them. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote by five millions.
§ *MR. SPEAKERNo Amendment for the reduction of the Vote on this resolution is in order, as I have already put the question.
§ MR. J. P. FARRELLthought that of all the forces which had been raised for the war, that which was likely to be of the least utility in the field was the Imperial Yeomanry. It was largely composed of boys of not more than sixteen years of age. He was travelling not long since between London and Holyhead, when an Imperial Yeoman, a mere boy, joined the train. He said, in answer to questions, that he was to sail from Dublin for South Africa the following Wednesday, that his father and brother were engaged in the war, and that it was on that account that he had been accepted for service. The lad's youthful appearance struck him so forcibly that he asked him his age, to which he replied that he was sixteen years; and he did not look a day older. Then he asked the boy how he had passed the standard, and the lad replied that there was no bar to entering the Imperial Yeomanry. In all sincerity he held that it was really a crime to take these schoolboys and send them to South Africa to be shot. He merely related the incident to show the class of men that were being engaged, and the manner in which money was being spent. It could not possibly be argued that such a young lad could be of any utility on service. He himself knew similar cases, and he therefore thought that the Vote for the Imperial Yeomanry was money absolutely wasted.
With reference to the general question of the administration of the War Office, the hon. Member for East Clare spoke with great force, and with his accustomed ability, on the tremendous indictment laid against the War Office by hon. Members on that side, and also by the service Members. He thought that they should have some definite assurance that the subject was not going to be shelved. Whenever the Government wore in a difficulty over any question, a Commission was promised for 820 the purpose of shelving it, and nothing was really done. It was not fair to submit such large Supplementary Estimates without a definite assurance being given that the administration of the Department would in future be conducted on better lines. If the War Office were to be conducted in the future as, according to recent revelations, it had been conducted in the past, the sooner it was abolished altogether the better. The state of things disclosed between the two noble Lords at the head of the Department would lead one to suppose that they were boys squabbling at school rather than Ministers engaged in protecting the State. Under the circumstances they were quite entitled to press that such a state of things should be put an end to. He quite understood why the noble Lord did not reply to the trenchant criticisms of his hon. friend. It was very difficult to reconcile the ordinary rank and file to a shilling a day while other men were getting 5s. who had not borne the heat and burden of the fight. It was, however, absolutely necessary that some explanation should be given, because he knew from reliable information that at Aldershot and other military stations the greatest dissatisfaction was being manifested among the private soldiers. If the differentiation were to be continued he should not be surprised if it became more and more difficult to obtain recruits for the Regular Army. No doubt the Department might increase the inducements to enlist, but it would be a long time before the disagreeable impression created by the special treatment given to the Yeomanry would be removed, or before the ordinary Tommy Atkins would be convinced that his services had been as well recompensed as the emergency men who had been sent to South Africa. The Irish people were opposed to the war. They had in every way open to them denounced it as impolitic and unjust, and yet they were to be compelled to pay an unjust share of its expenses. He trusted his hon. friends would mark their disapproval of the policy of the Government by dividing against the Vote.
§ *MR. CATHCART WASON (Orkney and Shetland)said that in listening to the remarks of hon. Gentlemen opposite, 821 he found it difficult to know whether to treat them seriously or not. One thing he was perfectly certain of, and that was that, although hon. Members might speak for certain parts of Ireland, they did not speak for the vast majority of Irishmen throughout the Empire.
§ MR. FLAVIN (Kerry. N)Let the hon. Gentleman try the issue in Ireland.
§ *MR. CATHCART WASON said he knew more of Irishmen abroad than hon. Gentlemen, who utterly misrepresented their views. He would not have ventured to have interfered in the discussion were it not for the grossly calumnious utterances of hon. Members opposite. Hon. Members talked of 5s. a day, but that was no remuneration for the soldiers of the colonies who went to fight the battles of the motherland; and if the motherland did not desire to pay them at all they would have served for nothing. He had the honour of a seat in the New Zealand Parliament when the question of sending troops came forward, and Irishmen of all shades— Orangemen as well as Catholics—were unanimous in voting sufficient money to send a contingent to South Africa, and after that not only one, but several were sent. Feeling in the colonies was absolutely unanimous in favour of the war, and as far as he knew not a single voice was raised against it. He had heard opinions quoted from newspapers of which he had never heard, although he had lived most of his life in the colonies. It was said there was no feeling in the colonies in favour of the war, but he said there was, because the colonies realised that their whole existence depended on the successful termination of the war. Every class in the community contributed either money or comforts for the men who were to fight in defence of the motherland. Therefore, when hon. Members spoke as they had spoken to-night, he said most emphatically that they did not speak for Irishmen throughout the Empire. With all due, respect to hon. Members from Ireland he did not believe in their disloyalty. He believed that if the country were put to the pinch to-morrow they would also support her, and that all 822 their talk was the merest bluster. He firmly believed that it was not disloyalty. The Irish Members were probably just as loyal as other Members of the House, and they would die in the ditch to-morrow if duty called. He emphatically protested against the accusations which had been made against the colonists that they only came to the help of the mother country for the miserable 5s. a day. The great body of those who volunteered for service in South Africa were people who left good situations. Farmers left their farms, merchants left their business, and lawyers left their briefs. Everyone was anxious to subscribe, to assist and volunteer their services. The colonists had been libelled in two most atrocious speeches. It was enough to make the blood of any person boil within him. [An IRISH MEMBER: They took the five bob all the same.] The answer to that was perfectly simple. The pay was simply temporary pay and for a temporary reason; it did not carry any turther liability with it; whereas the men who received 1s. a day were professional persons. The hon. Members from Ireland knew that as well as he did.
§ MR. O'MARA (Kilkenny, S.)said the hon. Member who had just sat down was bubbling over with enthusiasm and loyalty and indignation, but he did not state what circumstances prevented him from going to South Africa. [An HON. MEMBER: Age.] He said the colonists were boiling over with enthusiasm and loyalty. It was within the knowledge of the House that Canada had within the last few months refused to send more troops to South Africa. Did that prove that the colonies were boiling over with enthusiasm? There could be no doubt that the pay of 5s. a day was an immense inducement to people who had not regular employment to enlist as volunteers in His Majesty's Army. It was a fact that most of the people in the Irish constituencies were opposed to the war in South Africa. It was a fact that the colonies were not so opposed. The difference arose from the fact that the colonies had self-government and Ireland had not. Let them give Ireland self government, and conciliate the people. 823 and it might be that they would be as loyal as the colonies. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said the Nationalist Members were there to obstruct the business of the House. Apart from the fact that such a phrase was not in order, the Nationalist Members were perfectly within their right in discussing these Votes at great length that night, and they deserved every facility from the House, as they were not interfering with the Government time. Perhaps they were interfering with the convenience of some hon. Members, but surely they were patriotic enough to sit up a few hours in the morning to hear some reasonable discussion. He hoped that Members on both sides of the House would join the Nationalist Members in making the Army what it should be—an efficient army. There was no doubt whatever that this country would be unable to recruit a force of 450,000 men by any other means than conscription. One matter on which the country had made up its mind was that it would not endure conscription at any cost. The Army of this country was a voluntary army, and to keep up the requisite number of men they must pay the ordinary rate of wages at which unskilled labour could be got in the country. Unskilled labour could command more than 1s. a day. The wages of agricultural labourers in the worst paid districts in England was 12s. a week, practically all found. He submitted that they would get none but the worst class of the community at 1s. a day. Of the 450,000 men 400,000 were common soldiers or non-commissioned officers, and they only got in regimental pay £10,000,000, and the other 50,000 received £11,000,000. This unequal method of distributing the money voted for the Army would result-in the failure to recruit the necessary number of men. To recruit a voluntary army it was necessary not only to pay a wage equivalent to that paid in the labour market, but also to provide special attractions to men who were asked to risk their lives. In their scheme, however, the Government had increased the number of men and decreased the attractions. Under the heading G the gratuities and soldiers' discharges only amounted to £200,000. as against £310,000 last year. That was a reduction of 33 per cent., 824 although an immense number of men would be discharged during the present year; and they were to have no reward for risking their lives in the war, and the I unfortunate enteric patients who had returned would have nothing to help them on. He could not understand the reduction. Another matter which showed that the Government intended to resort to compulsory recruiting was that the item for recruiting had also been reduced. Of course it was plain that it would cost more to recruit an army when the jingo fever had passed away, and it was clear to his mend that sooner or later the Government intended to force conscription on the country unless the House of Commons put a stop to their present policy in time.
The Secretary of State for War boasted that his scheme would increase the efficiency of the Army, but he could find no trace of increased efficiency in the Estimates he was criticising. The efficiency of the Army could be increased in several ways, the principal one being to give the men better training. They all knew that the artillery practice in the war was wretchedly bad, and it would therefore have been thought that more money would have been devoted to gunnery establishments. Instead, however, the Vote for the School of Gunnery had only been increased by £1,400 which he submitted was a miserable increase for the purpose. If the efficiency of the Army were to be increased it was essential that more guns and better guns should be provided, and the increase under that head was, in his opinion, absolutely insufficient. Then in reference to engineering, the Boer; farmers, who were never trained in the art of war, were able to entrench themselves so as to be practically invulnerable, simply because they knew how to use the pick and shovel. The increase under that head was only £1,200, which was also insufficient. The marksmanship of the Army, too, was very bad, but the amount to be devoted to it was only increased by £4,000. Hon. Members from Ireland were entirely opposed to the war, but that was no reason why they should not endeavour to limit the expenditure on the Army, and that expenditure could only be limited by making the Army efficient. The hon. Member for Orkney 825 and Shetland spoke about loyalty, but he observed that the pay of the South African local forces had been reduced by £.350. He wished to know whether that reduction was accompanied by a decrease in the number of men, and, if it were was hat a sign of loyalty?
He wished to call attention to the remormons Supplementary Estimates which were brought forward in connection with matters which could very well have been foreseen. The Estimates were presented in this form merely for the purpose of blinding the people of the country to the enormous expenditure being incurred by the Government. Tore Governments had the reputation of always putting money into circulation. and the present Government had worthily upheld the tradition. The reduction of £17,000 with regard to the China Expedition was altogether uncalled for, especially in view of the fact that at the present moment a war with Russia was quite within the bounds of possibility. The messing allowances for officers and the amount of hand expenses were perfectly ridiculous. and if the taxpayers only knew how their money was being wasted they would lose the little remaining confidence they had in the War Office. The matters revealed by these Estimates showed that the Secretary of State for War bad fallen a victim to the red tape of the War Office. and drifted in the steps of his predecessors. The hon. Member confidently predicted that. instead of efficient troops. the country would possess a very inefficient Army unless the principle of conscription was applied. There had been a terrible increase in the ordinary military expenditure, the amount now being about £21,000.000, and the country was paying much more for its small voluntary army than France was paying for its army of 3,000,000 men. or Germany with its 4,000,000. The present proposals of the Government were a first step towards conscription, but although the people of England had forgiven many things in order that the South African war might be carried on, they would never forgive the Government if through it they were forced to adopt the principle of conscription.
§ *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,) GuildfordThe hon. Member who has just spoken expresses the hope that the hon. Members around him would not fail to follow him with long speeches in support of the view he was taking, and certainly, to judge by the length of his own speech, he set them a good example in that direction. But I would make an appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite to remember the position in which we stand with regard to this matter. The Vote has been placed on the Paper, no doubt, at a late hour. on a distinct understanding between the First Lord of the Treasury and the House that there should be a special opportunity of discussing by resolution all the important services which are contained in the Vote, and that resolution will be taken very early after Easter, and I cannot help thinking that both from the point of view of that understanding and from the point of view, in which we all share, of getting an effective discussion, this is rather a worse time than the opportunity which will be given shortly after Easter for going into the whole subject. The hon. Member said he had broken new ground. It is pefeetly true that he discussed nearly every item in the Vote, and I am afraid that if I were to follow him I should take even a longer time.
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMONDGive us a full explanation.
§ *MR. BRODRICKLet me say one word in reply to the hon. Member for East Clare. He spoke of the difference between the pay of the Yeomanry and that of the ordinary common soldier. Of course there is a difference, but perhaps the hon. Member is not aware that the men we get in the Yeomanry are, as a rule, three or four years older than the ordinary recruit. We have got for the short period we require men who are in the very prime of life. That is the reason for the difference in the pay. Everybody knows for a short period of that kind we are obliged to pay a higher sum. I pay my tribute to the value of the colonial 827 contingents during this war, and to the bravery which they have shown. In reply to what has been said I may say that there has been no falling off in the desire to serve the King. One hon. Member stated that Canada has refused to send a contingent, but I may point out to the hon. Member that within the last four months Canada has raised 1,000 men for the South African Constabulary, and all the other colonies have made equally generous responses. The number of colonials drawing the higher rate is about 30,000, and all those men cease to serve when the war is over. Then we shall be relieved of that extra pay which it has been well worth our while to offer them. On all points connected with this Vote I am prepared to give chapter and verse to the House, but I do think the opportunity afforded at two o'clock in the morning is extremely inconvenient, and not only this, but we shall not get any report in the papers. Therefore, I intend to defer my reply on some other points until the exceptional opportunity provided by the First Lord of the Treasury arrives, and then the main debate can be taken upon that occasion.
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked if it was not a fact that the Colonial Governments in Australia had forbidden recruiting for the Constabulary. The right hon. Gentleman had not answered his question as to the total cost of the colonial contingents.
§ *MR. BRODRICKThere are about 30,000 colonial troops receiving the higher rate of pay. In order to get at the cost of sending out these contingents we
| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex F. | Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin |
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Brookfield, Colonel Montagu | Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Bull, William James | Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward |
| Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. | Cavendish, Y. C. W. (Derby shire | Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst |
| Arrol, Sir William | Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Finch, George H. |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne |
| Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy | Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm. | Fisher, William Hayes |
| Bain, Col. James Robert | Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r | Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r | Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Fletcher, Sir Henry |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds) | Cranborne, Viscount | Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk. |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin | Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham | Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby- |
| Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol) | Dickson, Charles Scott | Goschen, Hn. George Joachim |
| Bignold, Arthur | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Goulding, Edward Alfred |
| Bill, Charles | Duke, Henry Edward | Gray, Ernest (West Ham) |
§ should have to get Returns from South Africa, and also from the colonies, and I think the hon. Gentleman will understand that with the immense amount of; labour at the War Office in consequence of what is going on now in South Africa, we are unable at the present moment to supply this information. The hon. Member has now made his rejoinder, and I think that for the general purposes of debate we shall do well to adjourn the whole discussion until the promised opportunity after the holidays.
§ MR. FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick)said the Secretary for War had stated that there was an understanding in regard to the further opportunity to discuss this question after the holidays. As far as the Irish Members were concerned, they desired to discuss this question upon every available opportunity. He wanted some information regarding—
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR rose in his place and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."
§ *MR. NANNETTI (Dublin, College Green)I am afraid you will bring about such a scene as that which occurredthe other night. It is disgraceful.
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 140; Noes,; 66. (Division List No. 86.)
| Greene, Sir E. W. (B'ryS. Edm'nds | Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriesshire | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- |
| Grenfell, William Henry | Melville, Beresford Valentine | Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander |
| Gretton, John | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W. |
| Greville, Hon. Ronald | Molesworth, Sir Lewis | Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln |
| Groves, James Grimble | Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) | Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew |
| Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill | More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire) | Simeon, Sir Barrington |
| Guthrie, Walter Murray | Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.) |
| Hambro, Charles Eric | Morgan, Hn Fred. (Monm'thsh. | Smith, James Parker (Lanarks) |
| Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G. (Midl'x | Morrell, George Herbert | Spear, John Ward |
| Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. | Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F. | Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk |
| Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfd) | Mount, William Arthur | Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) |
| Hare, Thomas Leigh | Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. | Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M. |
| Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale- | Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute | Talbot, Lord F. (Chichester) |
| Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley | Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Henderson, Alexander | Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) | Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray |
| Higginbottom, S. W. | Nicholson, William Graham | Tufnell, Lt.-Col. Edward |
| Hope, J F. (Sheffield, Brightside | Nicol, Donald Ninian | Valentia, Viscount |
| Johnston, William (Belfast) | Peel, Hn. Wm Robert Wellesley | Walker, Col. William Hall |
| Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop. | Percy, Earl | Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E. |
| Knowles, Lees | Platt-Higgins, Frederick | Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney |
| Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. | Plummer, Walter R. | Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton) |
| Law, Andrew Bonar | Pretyman, Ernest George | Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts |
| Lawson, John Grant | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward | Whiteley, H. Ashton-u.-Lyne |
| Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Pym, C. Guy | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset) |
| Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie | Randles, John S. | Willox, Sir John Archibald |
| Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. | Ratcliffe, R. F. | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.) |
| Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. | Remnant, James Farquharson | Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart- |
| Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Bristol, S. | Rentoul, James Alexander | Wrightson, Sir Thomas |
| Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale | Renwick, George | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft | Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge | Young, Commander (Berks, E.) |
| Macdona, John Cumming | Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green | |
| M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstuther. |
| Majendie, James A. H. | Roe, Sir Thomas | |
| Malcolm, Ian | Royds, Clement Molyneux |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) | Flavin, Michael Joseph. | O'Kelly, James (Rosc'mmon, N. |
| Ambrose, Robert | Gilhooly, James | O'Malley, William |
| Asher, Alexander | Hammond, John | O'Mara, James |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Hayden, John Patrick | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Black, Alexander Willian | Jameson, Major J. Eustace | O'Shee, James John |
| Boyle, James | Jones, William (Carnarvoushre | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Joyce, Michael | Priestley, Arthur |
| Caldwell, James | Kennedy, Patrick James | Reddy, M. |
| Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) | Leamy, Edmund | Redmond, John E. (Waterford |
| Cawley, Frederick | Leigh, Sir Joseph | Redmond, William (Clare) |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Lundon, W. | Rigg, Richard |
| Colville, John | MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. | Roche, John |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | M'Fadden, Edward | Sullivan, Donal |
| Crean, Eugene | M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) | Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings |
| Crombie, John William | Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport) | Thomas, J. A. (Glamorg'n, Gower |
| Cullinan, J. | Murphy, J. | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Daly, James | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Ure, Alexander |
| Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. | Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) | Whiteley, George (York, W. R.) |
| Doogan, P. C. | O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMid | |
| Duffy, William J. | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien. |
| Elibank, Master of | O'Doherty, William | |
| Farrell, James Patrick | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) | |
| Ffrench, Peter | O'Dowd, John | |
| Field, William | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) |
§ Question put accordingly, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Capt Sir Alex F. | Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. | Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John |
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Arrol, Sir William | Bagot, Capt. Joceline FitzRoy |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Asher, Alexander | Bain, Col. James Robert |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r) | Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford) | Randles, John S. |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds | Hare, Thomas Leigh | Ratcliffe, R. F. |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin | Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale- | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol | Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley | Rentoul, James Alexander |
| Bignold, Arthur | Henderson, Alexander | Renwick, George |
| Bill, Charles | Higginbottom, S. W. | Rilley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge) |
| Black, Alexander William | Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside | Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Johnston, William (Belfast) | Rigg, Richard |
| Brookfield, Colonel Montagu | Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) |
| Bull, William James | Kenyon Slaney, Col. W. (Salop) | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Caldwell, James | Knowles, Lees | Royds, Clement Molyneux |
| Cavendish, V C W. (Derbyshire) | Lambton, Hon. Frederick W. | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- |
| Cawley, Frederick | Law, Andrew Bonar | Sadler, Col. Samuel Alex. |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Ashton Manor) | Lawson, John Grant | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.) | Leigh, Sir Joseph | Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew) |
| Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc. | Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie | Simeon, Sir Barrington |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Levesen-Gower, Fredk. N. S. | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Colville, John | Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. | Smith, James P. (Lanarks.) |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Long, Rt. Hn. Waltor (Bristol, S. | Spear, John Ward |
| Crombie, John William | Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) | Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk) |
| Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham | Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) | Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) |
| Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. | Macdona, John Cumming | Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M. |
| Dickson, Charles Scott | M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers- | Majendie, James A. H. | Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings |
| Duke, Henry Edward | Malcolm, Ian | Thomas, J. A. (Glam., Gower) |
| Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin | Maxwell, W. J. H. (Durnfriessh. | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton | Melville, Beresford Valentine | Tomlinson, W. Edw. Murray |
| Elibank, Master of | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward | Molesworth, Sir Lewis | Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward |
| Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst | Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) | Ure, Alexander |
| Finch, George H. | More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire. | Valentia, Viscount |
| Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Morgan, David J. (Walthamst. | Walker, Col. William Hall |
| Fisher, William Hayes | Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh. | Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E. |
| Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon | Morrell, George Herbert | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney |
| Fletcher, Sir Henry | Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F. | Welby, Lt.-Col. A.C. E. (Taunton |
| Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk. | Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport | Welby, Sir C. G. E. (Notts.) |
| Gore, Hn. F. S. Ormsby- | Mount, William Arthur | Whiteley, Ceorge (York, W. R.) |
| Goschen, Hn. George Joachim | Mowbray, Sir Robt. Gray C. | Whiteley, H. (Ashton under L.) |
| Goulding, Edward Alfred | Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) |
| Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) | Willox, Sir John Archibald |
| Greene, Sir E. W. Bry St. Edm'nds | Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.) |
| Grenfell, William Henry | Nicholson, William Graham | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Gretton, John | Nicol, Donald Ninian | Wrightson, Sir Thomas |
| Greville, Hon. Ronald | Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Groves, James Grimble | Platt-Higgins, Frederick | Young, Commander (Berks., E. |
| Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill | Plummer, Walter R. | |
| Guthrie, Walter Murray | Pretyman, Ernest George | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther. |
| Hambro, Charles Eric | Priestley, Arthur | |
| Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G. (Mid' x. | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward | |
| Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. Wm. | Pym, C. Guy |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) | Hammond, John | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) |
| Ambrose, Robert | Hayden, John Patrick | O'Kelly, James (R'ssc'mm'n,N. |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Jameson, Major J. Eustace | O'Malley, William |
| Boyle, James | Joyce, Michael | O'Mara, James |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Kennedy, Patrick James | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) | Leamy, Edmund | O'Shee, James John |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Lundon, W. | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. | Reddy, M. |
| Crean, Eugene | M'Fadden, Edward | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Cullinan, J. | M'Killopp, W. (Sligo, North) | Redmond, William (Care) |
| Daly, James | Murphy, J. | Roche, John |
| Doogan P. P. | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Sullivan, Donal |
| Duffy, William J. | Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South | |
| Farrell, James Patrick | O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'rary Mid | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien. |
| Ffrench, Peter | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | |
| Field, William | O'Doherty, William | |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) | |
| Gilhooly, James | O'Dowd, John |
§ Adjourned at a Quarter after Two of the clock.