HC Deb 05 June 1902 vol 108 cc1555-85

Message from His Majesty, recommending that he should be enabled to grant Lord Kitchener a sum of £50,000.

(2.38.) THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.

Sir, in conformity with His Majesty's gracious Message, I now rise to propose to the Committee of the House the grant of a sum of money to the distinguished General to whose skill have been entrusted the safety and honour of the Empire during the last two years and more in South Africa It is given to few great public servants, in so short a time to compass so much work for their country as it has been given to Lord Kitchener to do. It is six years since he was a colonel in the British Army. He has now the highest military rank under that of Field-Marshal; he has been made Baron, Viscount. After what I hope will be done by the House this afternoon, he will twice have been voted sums of money out of the public exchequer for his services. He is the Commander-in-Chief designate of our Indian Empire. These are great rewards, and yet I do not think anybody who looks back at Lord Kitchener's career will say that he is overpaid for the services which he has rendered to us.

I do not propose to go in detail over even that part of Lord Kitchener's military career which he spent in South Africa. It will be in the recollection of all that he went there first as the Chief of the Staff of Lord Roberts at a time when the duties of the Chief of the Staff', always onerous and always responsible, were especially onerous and especially responsible in consequence of the disorganisation, or, perhaps I should say, the dislocation, of Her Majesty's forces, consequent upon the ill-success which had attended our arms in the earlier phases of the campaign. That difficult and responsible duty Lord Kitchener executed with admirable energy and with admirable skill; but it was not, I suppose, until the third period of the war, after Lord Roberts had left South Africa, that the special claims of Lord Kitchener to the gratitude of his countrymen reached their present magnitude. Lord: Roberts, in the second phase of the war, had carried out a most brilliant strategical and tactical movement, by which the enemy, regarded as an organised single tactical unit, had been practically shattered. Had we been fighting a highly-organised industrial community, such as a European community, there is no doubt that with Lord Roberts's success the war would have come to an end. This is not the time to discuss whether the Boer leaders on whom the responsibility falls for the continuance of the war were right or wrong. Everybody, at all events, even those who think they were wrong, and I am among them, would at once admit that a man who was fighting for his country must, even if you differed from him, be judged by the most lenient canons.

The difficulties thrown upon Lord Roberts's successor were of a novel and a most formidable character. When I say they were novel, I, of course, do not mean that guerilla warfare has not been a well-known incident in the military history of many nations. On the contrary, some of the greatest military Powers have felt their resources strained to the utmost in times past in dealing with such difficulties as we have been happy enough to surmount. Some great nations have succumbed in the attempt to deal with those difficulties. The character of those difficulties will be understood at once when I remind the House that Lord Kitchener had to deal at the same time with no less than ninety small mobile columns scattered over an area greater than that of large European States, and these columns were themselves not hampered by the military necessities of defending great commercial or national interests. Their one object—from their point of view a most legitimate object—was to harass the enemy; but they were not limited in their movements by the necessities which necessarily attach to forces engaged in very distant theatres of operations.

There is one further difference which greatly added to Lord Kitchener's difficulties, and which, so far as I know, is absolutely new in the history even of guerilla warfare, and that is that we were, while fighting our enemies, supporting their whole civil population. I think it would be out of place to attempt any detailed account of the methods by which Lord Kitchener attempted to deal with these novel and in some respects unique difficulties. But it may interest the House to be reminded that in the course of his operations against this mobile foe he created no less than 4,000 miles of lines defended by blockhouses—a distance greater than the whole distance which separates the Atlantic from the Pacific in North America, a distance greater than that which separates Khartoum from Cape Town in South Africa. This gigantic task shows a fertile brain. The success with which this was carried out shows boundless courage, boundless energy, and boundless resource; and it is to those great qualities that we owe the fortunate termination of the war in South Africa.

From the nature of the case, it must happen that when great military operations of this character are carried on, there is no room for great dramatic incidents, great battles in which opposite forces are marshalled one against the other, and in which the issue of a day decides the issue of the campaign. There were gallant feats of arms, gallant feats on both sides, feats creditable to both the parties engaged. But there were not, and there could not be, any incidents such as those which marked the advance of Lord Roberts, for example, to Pretoria, and, even on a greater scale, European campaigns in which we and other nations have been engaged. Yet I am not sure that, in spite of this deficiency in the dramatic element of warfare, the task which Lord Kitchener had thrust upon him was not, perhaps, as difficult as any which has been carried out under more dramatic circumstances. Certainly the strain could not have been less. Certainly the constant demand made upon his vigilance, upon his military eye, surveying the huge theatre of warfare, cannot have been less. Those qualities have been called into requisition by the circumstances in which Lord Kitchener found himself as much as they have ever been called into requisition in any campaign of which we have a record. Sir, I think, therefore, that the House will not for one instant grudge this new and further mark of our sense of the services which he has done the Empire. In the brilliant roll of English Generals, few indeed have had greater difficulties to contend with, few have come out of those difficulties in a more absolutely triumphant manner. It is, therefore, with the utmost confidence that I now move the Resolution standing on the Paper in my name.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs)

I rise for the purpose of supporting briefly, but most cordially, this recognition of the great services rendered by Lord Kitchener. I do not propose to enlarge upon the distinguished career of Lord Kitchener. From the early days of patient work in the exploration of Palestine, and of the duties, irksome at times, which he undertook on the Red Sea littoral, in the execution of which he displayed a singular aptitude for winning the confidence of men of other races than his own, and of conciliating them, through those laborious years of service in Egypt, culminating in the brilliant Soudan campaign, down to the day when, as Chief of the Staff, he set his foot in South Africa—those passages in his history are a prelude to the past events which now are in the minds of us all. Mr. Speaker, Lord Kitchener went to South Africa with the confidence of his fellow-countrymen. He has earned their admiration and their gratitude. With our partial and imperfect knowledge of the details of military operations, and with our ignorance—our necessary ignorance—of the intimate distribution of duties among those who conducted those operations, it is impossible for us at this moment to disentangle the course of events and to apportion to each of those who were engaged his proper share of credit. But we see enough to be aware of the supreme part that was played by that silent, modest, simple, almost stern figure of the Commander-in-Chief in South Africa. And, therefore, this vote does not convey merely, though it does so convey, a conventional compliment to the military staff' in South Africa through its head. It also, in an unusual degree, means an appreciation of his individual character and service. Lord Kitchener has shown himself a great soldier, but he has shown himself to be more than that—he has shown himself to be a great administrator, a master of the art of organisation, a tactful negotiator, and a largo-minded man. He is of the very best type of character which, with our pardonable partiality, we attribute to the British name. He is strenuous and pertinacious. He is straight and direct in his action, and he thinks of his duty and never thinks of himself. Then, can we hesitate at this moment, when his efforts, both as soldier and negotiator, have been crowned with success, when, as we hope, a stable and secure peace has been wrought out of the jarring elements of war—how can we hesitate to do honour to Lord Kitchener?

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum not exceeding £50,000 be granted to His Majesty to be issued to Lieutenant-General Lord Kitchener of Khartoum, G.C.B., G.C.M.G, Commander-in-Chief of His Majesty's Forces in South Africa, in recognition of his eminent services during the war in South Africa."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

(2.50.) MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

on rising to oppose this Vote said that, in his humble judgment, the Irish Party had reason, now that peace had been concluded, to congratulate themselves on the attitude they had maintained throughout the course of this unhappy war. At a time when the Press of this country, including the greatest organs of the Metropolis, were clamouring that the leaders of the Boer armies should be proclaimed as outlaws and shot down or hanged without mercy when captured, the Irish Members had the courage, even in this Assembly, at a time when the view certainly was not popular, and even at the risk of some injury to the cause of their own people, to do justice to the honour and bravery of the men whom even the British nation was now anxious to honour. He confessed it was with a feeling of amusement and gratification that he read the somewhat hysterical proposals which appeared this morning in the columns of one of the leading Jingo journals of London, that a British subscription should be opened to present a sword of honour to General De Wet. He considered that such proposals as that, which showed the great change that had come over British sentiment, were, in one respect at least, a triumphant vindication of the attitude of the Irish Party.

With regard to the present grant, he wished at the very outset of the observations he felt it his duty to make, to make one concession, or, at least, one statement that would surprise hon. Members opposite. If he could look at this matter from the point of view of an Englishman who considered the war necessary and just, he would certainly think that Lord Kitchener was somewhat scurvily treated. He opposed this grant on the ground of the methods by which Lord Kitchener had carried on his work, and also on the ground of the small character of the war. Although it had been said that in matters of this kind it was not wise to make comparisons, it was impossible to avoid instituting comparisons, because there must be some rule on which these grants were estimated, and in considering the question of the amount proposed to be given to Lord Kitchener, Members were driven to compare it with the grant to the Commander-in-Chief on the alleged termination of the war. If he were an Englishman, believing in the war as a just and necessary one, he would be inclined to give Lord Kitchener, at least, double what was given to Lord Roberts. After all, when the services of the men were compared, it was Lord Kitchener who had brought about peace, and there was the testimony of Lord Milner himself that for some months before Lord Roberts left South Africa the war was going from bad to worse. There was not the smallest doubt that the prolongation of the war was largely due to the proclamations and the misconduct of the war by Lord Roberts. The Boers had fough, as no othe nation ever fought, for their liberty, for which they were prepared to sacrifice everything. Although there were articles in the terms of peace which he confessed gave to him as a friend of the Boer nation great gratification and satisfaction, and although he believed that if those terms had been offered eighteen months ago when Lord Kitchener thought he had made peace with Louis Botha and was not allowed to offer the terms which had now been given to the Boers after eighteen months of disastrous and cruel war; he confessed that he saw nothing magnanimous in them, inasmuch as they deprived a brave people of that which to every brave nation was the most sacred of their possessions, namely, their liberty and independence, to which these people, true to their race, had proved during the last two and a half years of glorious war that they were as faithful to as were their ancestors who defended their homes in Holland against the armies of Philip.

The Irish Members opposed this grant to Lord Kitchener on three separate grounds. First of all, because they were now, as they had been throughout, in opposition to the whole war upon its merits. Every reasonable man would recognise that Lord Kitchener was not responsible for the war, and if Lord Kitchener had been in the position of Lord Milner they would never have had a war at all. The soldiers under him were only doing their duty in the field and obeying orders. They opposed this Vote in the second place on the ground of the conduct of the campaign. They opposed it, because they deplored the wholesale devastation of the country, the burning of the homes of the inhabitants and the bringing of the women and children into the concentration camps. They held that those proceedings were against the laws of war. He had maintained before that the wholesale devastations of the Transvaal and the Orange Territory was against the laws of war. The provisions agreed to by the representatives of the European representatives for the conduct of war were as follows— Any compulsion of the population of occupied territory to take part in military operations against its own country is prohibited. That was violated. Family honours and rights, individual lives and private property, as well as religious convictions and liberty, must be respected. This was violated. Private property cannot be confiscated. Pillage is formally prohibited. Both were violated. It was specially prohibited— To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war. He held that it was beyond all question that in the last article, the words, "imperatively demanded by the necessities of war "meant the immediate necessities of a battle or engagement, and could not by any strain of interpretation be distorted into meaning the devastation of an entire country. All those four or five important articles which had only been recently adopted, defining what had been recognised as the usages of civilised warfare, had each and everyone been broken by Lord Kitchener in the conduct of this campaign, and, without going into any further detail, on that ground alone they were opposed to the Vote. Though he was advocating a very unpopular cause, he put it to hon. Members to reflect how far-reaching was the example of a great nation like England, which claimed to hold so prominent a position in all matters of civilisation and humanisation, breaking through the usages of civilised warfare in order to crush out of existence so small and brave a race as the Boers.

He wished for a moment to examine the policy of Lord Kitchener, or the policy for which he had accepted the full responsibility. Was there an hon. Member of the Committee who now believed in his heart that the devastation of the Transvaal and the Orange Liver Colony was a step which conduced to the termination of the war? He believed that all military men were convinced that it was an enormous blunder. ["No, no!"] He was speaking now of the judgment of others, for on military matters his own judgment was not worthy of much consideration. [Ministerial cries of "Hear, hear! "] He was speaking of the opinions he had gathered from military correspondents and others which had been published, who had declared that the war had been prolonged by the devastation of those two States, and the burning of the Boer farms. That he believed to be the opinion of every man in South Africa. The termination of the war had been hastened, although at enormous cost, by the blockhouse system, but the system was adopted after the devastation. His strong conviction was that this policy was not only to be condemned on the ground of its being a gross and most shocking violation of the usages of civilised warfare recognised by civilised countries in the last century, but also because it was a blunder and did not in any degree promote the object for which it was adopted. Could any man doubt its effect upon the future government of the country? Those who were conducting this war had stated all along what appeared to be a self-evident fact from the first, that in the long run if this nation persevered with the war they must come out on top by the process of wearing down a not very numerous enemy. The government ought to have kept their eyes fixed upon the problem of reconstruction of South Africa from the Zambesi to the Cape on lines which would in the future have been a source of strength to this Empire.

He wished to say a word or two about the concentration camps. That was the policy of Lord Kitchener, and they had been told that he had accepted full responsibility for that policy. That policy was a gross violation of the usages of war. [Cries of "No, no!"] What had been the results of that policy in the gross? Many hon. Members would recollect the elaborate statistics by which it was sought to prove to the House of Commons that a death rate of 300 per thousand per annum was about the normal death rate amongst the Boers. [Cries of "Question, question!"] That was the question, and it was on that ground that he was endeavouring to justify his opposition to this vote. It was stated in the last published returns that the death statistics in the camps had been reduced from 300 per thousand to 32 per thousand. They could never get over that fact which was a black record against the generals responsible and he was now endeavouring to fix the responsibility upon the Commander-in-Chief. He wished to take that opportunity of repudiating the charge made against himself and his comrades that they sought to fix charges of brutality on the individual officers and soldiers for they had never done so. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] He had always endeavoured to fix the full weight of responsibility upon the man who was well able to bear it, namely, Lord Kitchener. In those camps since the 1st January, 1901, there had been 15,098 deaths amongst children under twelve years of age. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: "It's murder!"] During the operation of those camps upwards of 10,000 children had been sent to their death, who, had they been left in their homes, would have been alive today. [Cries of "No, no!"] That was a black record against the conduct of this campaign which no amount of sophistry would ever explain away.

He had now mentioned the three grounds on which they opposed this vote. It was impossible to consider the question of a grant to Lord Kitchener, the general charged with the responsibility of conducting this war, without having some regard to the character and the magnitude of the war and the victory in respect of which the money was asked for. He had made a rather interesting calculation in this respect, and he had ascertained that every Boer who by this victory had been added as an unwilling subject to this Empire had cost them £1,000 per head for every man, woman and child, and although there did not live a greater admirer of the Boer race than himself nor a man who valued the Boer race more highly he thought £1,000 per head was rather a high fine to pay for them. There had been great exaggerations about this war which had been spoken of as if it were a war with a great European power. Some people seemed to have forgotten the number of the enemy in the field against them. He maintained that every Boer had cost this country £1,000 per head, and he thought that was a high price to pay for it. There had never been a more extraordinary war than this one. The whole population of the two States who held the force of this Empire at Bay for nearly three years only numbered 250,000, men, women, and children, which was not more than the population of a town like Brighton, and certainly was under the population of Birmingham. He submitted that to call upon the House of Commons to vote £100,000 to the Commander-in-Chief, and £50,000 to the Chief of Staff for concluding a war in which the enemy consisted of only 250,000 men, women, and children, was rather a large order, and on that ground alone, if on no other, he opposed the grant.

He now came to the last point. What I had victory done? In his judgment it had presented this country with a I problem which was one of the most difficult it had had to face in the whole course of its eventful history. After what had occurred it seemed doubtful whether it was possible for human statesmanship to solve that problem in the manner desired by the people of this country. To the Irish people, who had had a long and somewhat painful experience of British administrators endeavouring to govern and conciliate unwilling subjects, it seemed abundantly evident that no beginning towards the solution of this problem would be made by the men on the spot at present. Those who had watched the proceedings as critics—and he frankly admitted as biased and unfriendly critics—had found the question most interesting and instructive, and he could not better sum up their impressions than by quoting the opinion of a brilliant and illustrious English writer, who commented on the character of a fellow-countryman in the following words— There is nothing so bad or so good that you will not find an Englishman doing it. but you will never find an Englishman in the wrong. He does everything on principle. He fights you on patri tic principles; he robs you on business principles; he enslaves you on Imperial principles; he bullies you on manly principles; he supports his King' on loyal principles; and he cuts off his King's head on Republican principles; his watchword is always duty, and he never forgets that the nation which lets its duty get on the opposite side to its interests is lost. He would not move his Amendment, but content himself by voting against the Vote.

(3.20.) CAPTAIN NORTON (Newington, W.)

, as one of a very limited number of those sitting on his side of the House who had been connected with the service, wished to offer his meed of congratulation to the Government upon having so timely recognised the invaluable services which Lord Kitchener had rendered to the country. He might say that, much as he admired his reputation as a general, and the services he had rendered to his country in that respect, he appreciated still more the services which he had rendered from a diplomatic point of view. There were some of them sitting on that side of the House who, anxious as they were to let bygones be bygones, could not help feeling that if Lord Kitchener had received that measure of support to which he was entitled from all quarters, the war might have been brought to a more satisfactory issue quite eighteen months ago. They owed a tremendous debt to Lord Kitchener when they reflected that through his great skill he had won the esteem and admiration of a people who had made, perhaps, the most heroic struggle on record in the history of the world for their country, and they had established themselves as a people who would take their place down the centuries of time side by side with their great ancestors, who, unconquered by the Romans, nevertheless became their most faithful allies. He hoped that no one today would venture to take another leaf from the well-earned laurel of the distinguished general who had done so much for his country, and who had succeeded in gaining, as citizens of this country, the descendants of a race who, as had already been said, were not only unecnquered by the Romans, but who, centuries later, when their country was overrun by the troops of Louis XIV., made patriotic sacrifices which thrilled all Europe.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY (Shropshire, Newport)

said that, though the hon. Member for East Mayo professed to speak for the Irish nation, at all events he did not speak for the Irish soldier. As a past soldier of the British Army he did not think it would be right, over a question like this, to allow it to be supposed that the feelings of the Irish soldiers were fairly represented by Irish Members. In his opinion, the very best way they could record their feelings in regard to the Irish soldiers who had fought so gloriously, and died in such large numbers, under the leadership of Lord Kitchener and other British officers, was to ignore with contempt the ill-conditioned talk of Irish politicians.

MR. CREMER (Shoreditch, Haggerston)

said that if the Vote before the Committee had been to thank Lord Kitchener he should not have opposed it, but when they were asked to vote £50,000 to Lord Kitchener for his services he declined to support it, on the ground that from the beginning of the war to the present moment he had never voted for a single sixpence towards the cost of the war, or anything arising out of the war. He hoped that he would preserve his consistency to the end of the chapter. He supposed he was precluded by the Rules of the House from proposing that their thanks should be tendered to His Majesty, but he believed they owed a great debt of gratitude to him for this war having been brought to a successful conclusion. He did not suppose a Vote of that kind would be possible in this House, but if it were he was certain that it would be passed without a discordant note, and without one voice being raised against it. Speaking on behalf of what might be, perhaps, a small section of his countrymen, but still a section that had had some little influence in the past, and might have still more influence in the future, he took the opportunity of tendering to His Majesty hearty thanks for the part he had played, and for the tact and judgment he had brought to bear in bringing this horrible war to the satisfactory conclusion to which it had been brought.

(3.30.) COLONEL. SAUNDERSON (Armagh, N.)

said he would only venture to occupy the attention of the House for a moment, because he thought it was necessary that the House should know that there was more than one opinion in Ireland with regard to this question. The hon. Member for East Mayo spoke in the name of a party with which he acted, not as its leader, but as a member of the party whose view he evidently represented. He himself spoke in the name of a very considerable part of the Irish people, and he also spoke in the name of every Irish soldier. The House would remember that when the war was in progress hon. Members opposite devoted their talents and their oratory to trying to induce the Irish people to oppose in every way the action of the Government, and to trying to prevent Irishmen enlisting in the army. The reply was sent back from South Africa by the Dublin Fusiliers and the Enniskillen Fusiliers, which had taught hon. Gentlemen opposite that they at any rate did not speak in the name of the Irish soldiers. There was one thing he thought had come clearly out before the world in the last two and a half years, and that was that the accusation brought by hon. Gentlemen opposite against British rule in Ireland, to the effect that free speech in Ireland was a thing of the past, was an absolutely unfounded accusation. He would like to ask hon. Gentlemen opposite what would have happened in Germany, during the Franco-German war, if a German had spoken in Germany to the effect that the war was a crime, and that no Germans should enlist in the army for the German cause. The career of that German would have been very short, and he would have deserved his fate. What would have happened in France, he would like to know—that was a country which had enlisted the affection of hon. Gentlemen opposite—if a Frenchman had proclaimed the justice of the German cause? He would have met with a similar fate. He could not conceive a better punishment for hon. Gentlemen opposite than that they should be consigned to the tender mercies of the Irish Regulars who had fought in South Africa. With regard to this Vote, upon one point he agreed with the hon. Member for East Mayo. He regretted that it was not greater. The opinion of the whole nation was that this had been a great and difficult job, and that it had been well done. He confessed that he was sorry that £50,000 was to represent the estimate at which the nation held Lord Kitchener's worth. To his mind the outcome of debates of this kind, and the course pursued by hon. Gentlemen opposite, must be to open the eyes of their Radical friends as to the true character of Nationalist Members, and, therefore, the more they debated this question, and the more often the House heard their views on questions of this kind, unless the conscience of the Radical party was of a pachydermatous character, that party would hesitate before consigning the care of Ireland in future to men who had avowed open hatred to Great Britain, and disloyalty to the British Grown.

(3.35.) MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

said he agreed with every word that fell from the First Lord of the Treasury and the Leader of the Opposition in praise of Lord Kitchener. He considered that he had done his work well, and he had particular admiration for him, because while making war to the best of his ability he always remembered that the great aim of war was peace, and that the true object of the Commander who had the interests of his country at heart was to convert, so far as he could, foes into friends. But the hon. Member had certain old-fashioned virtues which were at a considerable discount at present in this House of Parliament—he meant principle and consistency. Since he had been in the House he had consistently opposed all those special grants to commanders-in-chief of expeditions abroad. He opposed the Vote to Lord Alcester, two Votes to Lord Wolseley, the Vote to Lord Roberts, and the former Vote to Lord Kitchener. Under those circumstances it seemed to him that, as a matter of principle, and apart from any question as to this man or that, whether the Commander-in-Chief was an able man or not, and whether the war was just or unjust, he should be wanting in consistency if he were not, though he knew that it was unpopular, to oppose the present Vote. Why should he do it? He had never understood why they should vote a large sum of money to a Commander-in-Chief who did his duty, and why they should not vote a sum of money to a Statesman who did more for his country by bringing in some excellent bill and carrying it in this House. It would be said that the thing had been done often and often, but that was not consistent with common sense. After all, it was exalting the military virtues at the expense of the civil virtues. If it were proposed on the other side to vote a large sum of money to, say the Colonial Secretary for the services he had rendered to the country, he could understand their vote to Lord Kitchener for what he had done. But to leave out the Colonial Secretary, whom they honoured and respected, and who had done such signal service to the empire in connection with this war, was a thing which he certainly could not understand. They did not give the Colonial Secretary a farthing, and they gave £50,000 to Lord Kitchener. Even assuming that it was desirable to make a distinction between the civil and military services, he should be against this system of giving large sums to the Commanders-in-Chief. The Committee would remember that when Lord Roberts came back to England a vote was taken for gratuities to the entire army. It was divided into units, and the gratuities were calculated according to the particular grades of the officers and men. He could not understand why they should vote a special grant to the Commander-in-Chief, because he was precisely the military man connected with a campaign of this kind who did not need a special grant. They knew perfectly well that the Commander-in-Chief—and the hon. Member was not complaining of it—received a very large salary, and more than that if he distinguished himself they knew perfectly well that he would receive almost always in future high duties as long as he had any work in him. They were told that Lord Kitchener was to be sent as Commander-in-Chief in India. [An Hon. MEMBER: Hear, hear!] He said "hear, hear! "too. He was glad that Lord Kitchener was to receive that honour, but he should have preferred that he had been made Commander-in-Chief in England. For his part, he believed that nothing they could do for Lord Kitchener in a monetary way could equal the honour done to him by the confidence shown in his word by the Boers and the manner in which they received him when he went into their camp. Look at the condition of the soldiers. Many of them came back ruined in constitution, many of them were wounded, and some had lost the work which they had before going into campaign. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: You send them to the workhouse!] I; he had to choose between voting a large sum to the Commander-in-Chief, and voting a still larger sum to be distributed among the soldiers, he should be in favour of voting it to the soldiers. If he were a Member on the other side of the House he should agree with his hon. and gallant friend who had just sat down that Lord Kitchener had received too little. When Lord Roberts returned from South Africa he left matters, as he said himself, in a most critical condition. The First Lord of the Treasury had said that Lord Kitchener had a much more difficult task than Lord Roberts. [Cries of "No!"] Anyhow, most Gentlemen in the House would agree that while there was more sensational military work under Lord Roberts, the more difficult task in connection with the war had fallen to Lord Kitchener. Lord Roberts received £100,000 after he had told the country that the war was over. That was evidently an entire mistake. He did not know whether Lord Roberts might not feel that Lord Kitchener should get the same sum as himself, or whether the two noble Lords should put the two sums together and divide the pool. He thought it would be a mean thing on the part of the country not to give Lord Kitchener the same sum as Lord Roberts. He did not entirely agree with his hon. friend that in making these grants to the Commander-in-Chief they should consider whether the war was a just or an unjust war. He did not, in opposing this vote, question the merits of Lord Kitchener as a commander or as a negotiator; but because he was honestly opposed to all those votes.

(3.48.) MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.)

said he would not have troubled the House with any observations at that stage; but unfortunately, on the previous day, when he desired to register his vote against this grant in its initial stage, he was unable to make the Speaker hear him when he said "No." For that reason he felt that he could not allow this occasion to pass without following the course he had always adopted ever since the war commenced, and explaining why he was opposed to this grant of money. The hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh had referred in very glowing and enthusiastic terms to the services done in South Africa, and to the sacrifices made by many of the Irish troops. He was not at all prepared to deny that the Irish troops in South Africa had done a great deal more than their fair share in the fighting and the suffering, but the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh would probably be surprised to hear that one of the reasons why he was opposed to this grant to Lord Kitchener was that he thought it was a shameful and disgraceful thing that the Commander-in-Chief should receive such large monetary compensation, while the very soldiers which the hon. and gallant Member talked about were allowed, in many cases, to drift into the workhouses, and their wives, children, and relatives had been absolutely neglected by the War Office. He did not know what the experience of the hon. and gallant Gentleman had been on this matter during the war, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not object to his telling him that scarcely a day had passed on which he had not received a large number of letters from the wives, children and relatives of the men at the front—particularly reservists—complaining that no steps had been taken by the War Office to compensate them for the loss of the wages of their husbands, fathers, or sons.

* THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

The hon. Gentleman will not be in order in discussing the conduct of the War Office under this Vote.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

said he had no desire to traverse beyond the scope of the Vote; he only wanted to show why he opposed this Vote to Lord Kitchener; and to ask why no similar proposal had been made for the provision of relief to the wives and children of the men at the front. In his opinion, the whole of this proceeding was covering the House and country with ridicule. The Government were making the House the laughing stock of the world. They were acting as if they had achieved some great and. mighty feat of arms, and had won a victory which justified them in celebrating it in every extraordinary way. What were the facts? Lord Kitchener with an army infinitely greater than all the men, women, and children in the Transvaal, had only been able to sign the conditions of peace at the end of two and three-quarter years, because the Boers had run short of ammunition and the other means for carrying on the war. Where was the glory in that? Was there anything wonderful in such a so-called feat of arms? He maintained that the whole history of the last two and three-quarter years had covered the name of the English people with eternal disgrace in every portion of the world; and the fact that this large sum of money was to be given to the Commander-in-Chief, while the men in the field and their families were left out in the cold, was simply disgraceful. It was a very easy thing for His Majesty the King or any other gentleman to suggest that this House should hand over £50,000 to Lord Kitchener or any other gentleman; but he thought that His Majesty the King and his counsellors would have been infinitely better advised if, instead of introducing this grant, they had asked the House to make some provision at this time to relieve the terrible distress and poverty of the masses of the people which was evident all round this city and in every part of the country. Lord Kitchener would go down to history as the one British General who had made war on women and children. [Loud and continued cries of "Oh, oh!" and "Divide."]

MR. MACVEAGH (Down, S.)

rose to a point of order. He begged to draw the attention of the Chairman to the persistent attempt of hon. Gentlemen opposite to prevent the hon. Member in possession of the Committee from proceeding with his speech.

* THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

The hon. Gentleman must be allowed to proceed.

MR. BAETLEY (Islington, N.)

asked whether it was in order, even for an Irish Member, to insult the British Army? [Loud cries of "Divide," and "Withdraw," from the Government Benches, and of "Police" from the Irish Benches.]

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

Withdraw what?

MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT (Cheshire, Macclesfield)

The charge the hon. Member made against Lord Kitchener.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

As to my reference to Lord Kitchener, I do not propose to withdraw a single word. [Loud and persistent cries of "Divide!"]

MR. MACVEAGH

I rise again to ask you, Mr. Jeffreys, whether you intend to enforce your decision that the hon. Member should obtain a fair hearing.

* THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is not out of order, but I cannot compel the Committee to listen to him. I hope, however, that the Committee will listen to him.

MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT

rose upon a point of order, but was not heard in the Gallery, owing to the uproar in the House.

* THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member rose to a point of order, and therefore I call upon him to raise his point of order.

MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT

I am anxious to assist, if I can, to put an end to this——

[Cries from the Irish Benches: What is your point of order?]

MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT

said the hon. Member had made use of an expression that had given a great deal of offence to Members on the Unionist side of the House. He had said that Lord Kitchener had made war upon women and children. If the hon. Gentle man did not withdraw that——

[Cries from the Irish Benches: That is not a point of order.]

* THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

That might have been an unfortunate expression, but it was not out of order.

MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT

again rose, but was met with loud cries of "Name, name!"

MR. DILLON

Name him. If he were an Irish Member he would have been named long ago.

* THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

I call upon Mr. Redmond to continue his speech.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

rose, but could not make himself heard.

MR. REDDY (King's County, Birr)

Where are your new Rules?

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

The hon. Gentleman said——

MR. SETON-KARR (St. Helen's)

I beg to move that the hon. Member be no longer heard.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

Mr. Jeffreys, will you ask them to be silent while I speak to you?

* THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member wishes to explain some question that arose. I hope the House will allow him to do so.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

, who spoke amid a great uproar, was understood to say that the hon. Gentleman, whose constituency he did not remember at the moment, had accused him of making what was an offensive observation, and had called upon him to withdraw it. He did not know what that observation was, but if the hon. Member referred to the statement that Lord Kitchener was responsible for the death of 15,000 children in the concentration camps, and that by those camps he had made war on women and children, he could only say that was his absolute conviction; he stated it, and would not withdraw it.

Mr. HALSEY (Hertfordshire, Watford)

, rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but the DEPUTY CHAIRMAN withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

, on rising to resume his speech, was again met with persistent interruption. He said that if hon. Gentlemen refused to hear him that was the best proof that they were afraid of what he might say. There was such an atmosphere of hypocrisy here that even when one man spoke the truth, hon. Members tried to drown his voice by organised disturbance. The conduct of Lord Kitchener in desecrating the tomb of the Mahdi at Omdurman——

* THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

said this was a Vote to Lord Kitchener for his services in South Africa. The hon. Member must not allude to other matters.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

said he wished to give an additional reason why the Irish Members objected to this Vote. In Ireland they could not get a farthing for a useful purpose, and money was squandered here on Generals who were well paid for their work. If this grant was to be given, why was Lord Kitchener selected against General Buller? Why was Lord Methuen, who fought as well as any of our soldiers, passed over? Lord Kitchener and Lord Roberts had made more disgraceful conquerors than any Generals in the history of the world. They left the wives and children of the Boers to starve, and now they were made the heroes of a corrupt society. So far as he was concerned, he opposed, this Vote.

An HON. MEMBER

Oh! sit down.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

On a point of order, Sir, I desire to know whether one hon. Member of this House is entitled to order another to sit down. [Renewed cries of "Divide!"] Mr. Jeffreys, I wish to know, Sir, why you. as Chairman, do not appeal to the Committee to give me a hearing. Is it because my opinions are not popular that I am not entitled to be heard?

* THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

I have appealed to the Committee to hear the hon. Gentleman. I cannot compel it. [Cries of "Call in the police" from the Irish Benches.]

* THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

Order, order! The expressions that I have heard are not out of order.

MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)

Well, that is very useful!

MR. CALDWELL (Lanarkshire, Mid)

Upon a point of order, Sir, may I call your attention to the new Rule whereby, under certain conditions, a sitting may be suspended? And may I ask whether the time has not arrived when that Rule should be put in force.

* THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

No, Sir, I do not think the time has arrived. But I would ask the hon. Member to conclude his speech, as it is apparently distasteful to the House. I did not accept the closure, because I thought the hon. Gentleman was nearing the end of his speech. [Further Irish shouts of dissent.]

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

rose, and attempted to speak, amidst continued uproar. He was understood to say that, as he desired to reply, he appealed to the Deputy Chairman to get him a hearing. He begged to inform him that, owing to the continued interruption, he had been unable to make any progress in the speech he intended to deliver. He could not accept the statement that, because a speech was distasteful to some portion of the House, a Member should not be allowed to make it.

Mr. BANBURY (Camberwell, Peckham)

rose in his place, and claimed to move.

"That the Question be now put."

MR. DILLON

, speaking with his hat on, on a point of order wished to know whether in future a Member of this House, when his speech was distasteful, must desist.

* THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

That is not a point of order.

MR. DILLON

I understood that was your ruling.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

May I ask you, on a point of order, if it is not true that you told me, because my speech was distasteful, that I should not continue?

* THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

When the hon. Gentleman asked me to get him a hearing, I said his speech was evidently distasteful to the Committee, that I was not able to get him a hearing, and that I hoped he would conclude his speech.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

Is it not in your recollection that you said, as my speech was distasteful, I should desist?

* THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

That was not my intention. My intention was to say that, as the speech was distasteful to the House, I could not get the hon. Member a hearing.

(4.10.) Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 273; Noes, 138. (Division List No. 201.)

AYES.
Acland-Hood. Capt. Sir Alex. F. Brassey, Albert Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Cranborne, Viscount
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Brookfield, Colonel Montagu Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)
Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden Brotherton, Edward Allen Cubitt, Hon. Henry
Allsopp, Hon. George Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh. Dalkeith, Earl of
Anson, Sir William Reynell Brymer, William Ernest Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan
Anstruther, H. T Bull, William James Dickinson, Robert Edmond
Arkwright, John Stanhope Burdett-Coutts, W. Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Campbell, Rt Hn. J. A. (Glasgow Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-
Arrol, Sir William Carlile, William Walter Disraeli, Conmgsby Ralph
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Dixon-Hartland, SirF'r'dDixon
Austin, Sir John Cautley, Henry Strother Dorington, Sir John Edward
Bain, Colonel James Robert Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.) Dougnty, George
Balcarres, Lord Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-
Baldwin, Alfred Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Doxford, Sir William Theodore
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r) Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds Chamherlain, Rt.Hn.J.(Birm.) Elliot, Hon. A Ralph Douglas
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christen. Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.
Barry Sir Francis T. (Windsor) Chamberlain, T. (S'thampton) Faber, George Denison (York)
Bartley, George C. T. Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Fardell, Sir T. George
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Chapman, Edward Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward
Beach, Rt. Hn Sir Michael Hicks Charringcon, Spencer Fergusson, Rt. Hn Sir J. (Manc'r
Beresford Lord Charles William Clive, Captain Percy A. Finch, George H.
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne
Bignold, Arthur Coddington, Sir William Fisher, William Hayes
Bill, Charles Coghill, Douglas Harry Fison, Frederick William
Blundell, Colonel Henry Cohen, Benjamin Louis FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-
Bond, Edward Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Flannery, Sir Fortescue
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith - Colomb,SirJohnCharlesReady Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Boulnois, Edmund Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Flower, Ernest
Brand, Hon. Arthur G. Corbett, A.Cameron(Glasgow) Foster,philipS(Warwick,S. W
Galloway, William Johnson Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale) Round, James
Gardner, Ernest Loyd, Archie Kirkman Russell, T. W.
Garfit, William Lucas, ReginaldJ.(Portsmouth Rutherford, John
Gibbs, Hon.Vicary (St. Albans) Macdona, John Cumming Sackville, Col. G. S. Stopford-
Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick MacIver, David (Liverpool) Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Gordon Hn.J.E.(Blgin & Nairn) M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Gore,HnG.RC. Ormsby-(Salop M'Calmont,Col.J.(Antrim, E.) Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Gore, Hon.S.F.Ormsby-(Line.) M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W Saunderson, RtHn.ColEdw. J.
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon M'Killop,James(Stirlingshire) Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)
Goulding, Edward Alfred Majendie, James A. H. Seton-Karr, Henry
Graham Henry Robert Malcolm, Ian Sharpe, William Edward T.
Greene, Sir E W (B'ry S Edm'nds Maxwell, RtHnSirHE.(Wigt'n Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfew
Grenfell, William Henry Maxwell,WJH(Dumfriesshire Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Gretton, John Melville, Beresford Valentine Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Groves James Grimble Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)
Gunter, Sir Robert Mildmay, Francis Bingham Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Guthrie, Walter Murray Milner, Rt.Hon.SirFrederickG Spear, John Ward
Hain, Edward Milvain, Thomas Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)
Hall, Edward Mar-hall Mitchell, William Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk
Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset
Hamilton, RtHnLordG.(Mid'x Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)
Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nd'rry More, Robt.Jasper(Shropshire) Stewart, SirMarkJ.M. Taggart
Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd Morgan, David J. (Walth stow) Stirling Maxwell, Sir John M.
Hare, Thomas Leigh Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh. Stock, James Henry
Harris, Frederick Leverton Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford Stone, Sir Benjamin
Hay, Hon. Claude George Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Heath, James(Staffords. N. W. Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. Oxf'd Univ.
Helder, Augustus Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) Tennant, Harold John
Henderson, Alexander Myers, William Henry Thorburn, Sir Walter
Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter Newdigate, Francis Alexander Thornton, Percy M.
Hickman, Sir Alfred Newnes, Sir George Tritton, Charles Ernest
Hoare, Sir Samuel Nicol, Donald Ninian Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Br'ghts'de O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Valentia, Viscount
Hornby, Sir William Henry Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) Walrond, Rt. Hn Sir William H
Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry Parker, Gilbert Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Hoult, Joseph Pemberton, John S. G. Well by, Lt. Col. AC. E (Taunton
Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil Penn, John Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.
Hutton, John (Yorks N. R.) Percy, Earl Whiteley, H (Ashton-und. Lyne
Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse Pierpoint, Robert Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Johnston, William (Belfast) Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm
Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) Platt-Higgins, Frederick Wills, Sir Frederick
Kennaway, Rt. Hon. SirJohn H. Plummer, Walter R. Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.
Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)
Kenyon-Slaney, Col, W. (Salop Purvis, Robert Wilson, Fred, W. (Norfolk, Mid
King, Sir Henry Seymour Pym, C. Guy Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Knowles, Lees Randles, John S. Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Rankin, Sir James Wilson, J. W. (Worc stersh. N.)
Laurie, Lieut.-General Rasch, Major Frederic Carne Wilson-Todd, Win. H. (Yorks.)
Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Ratcliff, R. F Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath
Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth Rattigan, Sir William Henry Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Lawson, John Grant Reed, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff) Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Lecky, Rt. Hon. William Edw. H Reid, James (Greenock) Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham Renshaw, Charles Bine Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Renwick, George Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge) Younger, William
Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green
Llewellyn, Evan Henry Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham Rolleston, Sir John F. L. Mr. Banbury and Mr.
Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S) Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye Bromley-Davenport.
Lowe, Francis William Ropner, Colonel Robert
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) Blake, Edward Causton, Richard Knight
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Roland, John Charming, Francis Allston
Allan, William (Gateshead) Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) Craig, Robert Hunter
Allen, Charles P. (Glouc, Stroud Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Crean, Eugene
Asher, Alexander Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Cremer, William Randal
Ashton, Thomas Gair Burke, E. Haviland- Crombie, John William
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Burns, John Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Caldwell, James Delany, William
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.
Black, Alexander William Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Dillon, John Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.) Price, Robert John
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Layland-Barratt, Francis Priestley, Arthur
Duncan, J. Hastings Leamy, Edmund Rea, Russell
Dunn, Sir William Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington Reddy, M.
Edwards, Frank Lloyd-George, David Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Elibank, Master of Lundon, W. Redmond, William (Clare)
Ellis, John Edward MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries
Emmott, Alfred MacNeill, John Cordon Swift Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Evans, Sir Francis H (Maist'ne MacVeagh, Jeremiah Roe, Sir Thomas
Farquharson, Dr. Robert M'Govern, T. Runciman, Walter
Fenwick Charles M'Hugh, Patrick A. Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)
Ffrench, Peter M'Kenna, Reginald Shaw, Charles E w. (Stafford)
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond M'Killop, W. (Silgo, North) Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Flynn, James Christopher M'Laren, Charles Benjamin Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Fuller, J. M. F. Markham, Arthur Basil Shipman, Dr. John G.
Furnees, Sir Christopher Mather, William Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Gilhooly, James Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William Soares, Ernest J.
Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John Morley, Charles (Breconshire) Sullivan, Donal
Grant, Corrie Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose Taylor, Theodore Cooke
Hammond, John Nannetti, Joseph P. Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gow'r
Harwood, George Norman, Henry Tomkinson, James
Hayden, John Patrick Norton, Capt. Cecil William Toulmin, George
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- Nussey, Thomas Willans Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) Ure, Alexander
Helme, Norval Watson O'Brien Kendal (Tipperary Mid Wallace, Robert
Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.) O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan
Holland, William Henry O'Connor, James (Wicklow W.) White, Luke (York. E. R.)
Horniman, Frederick John O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) Whiteley, George (York, W. R.
Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N Whitley, J. H.'(Halifax)
Jacoby, James Alfred O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Wood house, Sir J T (Huddersf'd
Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)
Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.) Partington, Oswald
Joyce, Michael Paulton, James Mellor TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Kearley, Hudson E. Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) Sir Thomas Esmonde
Labouchere, Henry Perks, Robert William and Captain Donelan.
Lambert, George Power, Patrick Joseph

(4.24.) Question put accordingly, "That a sum, not exceeding £50,000, be granted to His Majesty, to be issued to Lieutenant-General Lord Kitchener of Khartoum, G.C.B., G.C.M.G., Commander-in-Chief of His Majesty's Forces in South Africa,

in recognition of his eminent services during the war in South Africa."

The Committee divided :—Ayes, 380; Noes, 44. (Division List No. 202.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor) Brown, George M. (Edinburgh
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex F. Bartley, George C. T. Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Bryce, Rt. Hn. James
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Brymer, William Ernest
Allan, William (Gateshead) Beach, Rt. H n. Sir Michael Hicks Bull, William James
Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Burdett-Coutts, W.
Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden Beresford, Lord Charles William Caldwell, James
Allsopp, Hon. George Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Campbell, Rt Hn J A (Glasgow
Anson, Sir William Reynell Bignold, Arthur Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.
Arkwright, John Stanhope Bill, Charles Carlile, William Walter
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Black, Alexander William Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.
Arrol, Sir William Blundell, Colonel Henry Causton, Richard Knight
Asher, Alexander Bond, Edward Cautley, Henry Strother
Ashton, Thomas Gair Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Boulnois, Edmund Cavendish, V. G W. (Derbysh.
Austin, Sir John Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)
Bain, Colonel James Robert Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn) Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)
Balcarres, Lord Brand, Hon. Arthur G. Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.
Baldwin, Alfred Brassey, Albert Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc.
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds Brookfield, Colonel Montagu Channing, Francis Allston
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christen. Brotherton, Edward Allen Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry
Banbury, Frederick George Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh. Chapman, Edward
Charrington, Spencer Grenfell, William Henry Lowther, Rt. Hn James (Kent)
Clive, Capt. Percy A. Gretton, John Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A E. Groves, James Grimble Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth
Coddington, Sir William Gunter, Sir Robert Macdona, John Cumming
Cogbill, Douglas Hurry Guthrie, Walter Murray MacIver, David (Liverpool)
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Hain, Edward M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Hall, Edward Marshall M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)
Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb'rgh, W
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G (Mid. M'Kenna, Reginald
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William M'Laren, Charles Benjamin.
Craig, Robert Hunter Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd Majendie, James A. H.
Cranborne, Viscount Hare, Thomas Leigh Malcolm, Ian
Crombie, John William Harris, Frederick Leverton Markham, Arthur Basil
Crass, Alexander (Glasgow) Harwood, George Mather William
Cubitt, Hon. Henry Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo. Maxwell, Rt. Hn Sir H E (Wigt'n
Dalkeith, Earl of Hay, Hon. Claude George Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.
Davenport, William Bromley- Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- Mellor, Rt. Hn. John William
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D. Melville, Beresford Valentine
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley Middlemore, Jno. Throgmorton
Dewar, John A. (Inveness-sh. Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.) Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Dickinson, Robert Edmond Helder, Augustus Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.
Digby, John K. D. Wingfield- Helme, Norval Watson Milvain, Thomas
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Henderson, Alexander Mitchell, William
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)
Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fr'd Dixon Hickman, Sir Alfred Moon, Edward Robert Pacy
Dorington, Sir John Edward Hoare, Sir Samuel More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)
Doughty, George Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E. Morgan, Davd J (Walthamstow
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Holland, William Henry Morgan, Hn. Fred (Monm'thsh.
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside Morley, Charles (Breconshire)
Doxford, Sir William Theodore Hornby, Sir William Henry Morley, Rt. Hn John (Montrose
Duncan, J. Hastings Horniman, Frederick John Morton, Arthur H. A (Deptford)
Dunn, Sir William Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry Mowbray Sir Robert Gray C.
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Hoult, Joseph Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute
Edwards, Frank Howard, J. (Midd Tottenham) Muraay Charles J. (Coventry)
Elibank, Master of Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. Myers, William Henry
Ellis, John Edward Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.) Newdigate, Francis Alexander
Emmott, Alfred Jacoby, James Alfred Newnes, Sir George
Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone Jebb, Sir Richard Claver house Nicol, Donal Ninian
Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.) Johnston, William (Belfast) Norman, Henry
Faber, George Denison (York) Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Fardell, Sir T. George Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea Nussey, Thomas Willans
Farquharson, Dr. Robert Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Kearley, Hudson E. Palmer, George Wm. (Reading
Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Manc. Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)
Finch, George H. Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh) Parker, Gilbert
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop) Partington, Oswald
Fisher, William Hayes Keswick, William Paulton, James Mellor
Fison, Frederick William King, Sir Henry Seymour Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)
FitzGerald Sir Robert Penrose- Knowles, Lees Pemberton, John S. G.
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Lambert, George Perm, John
Flannery, Sir Fortescue Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Percy, Earl
Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Henry Laurie, Lieut.-General Perks, Robert William
Flower, Ernest Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow Pierpoint, Robert
Foster, Philip S. (Warw'k, S. W. Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth) Pilkington, Lieut-Col. Richard
Fowler, Rt. Hn. Sir Henry Lawson, John Grant Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Fuller, J. M. F. Layland-Barratt, Francis Plummer, Walter R.
Furness, Sir Christopher Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H. Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Galloway, William Johnson Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham Priestley, Arthur
Gardner, Ernest Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Purvis, Robert
Garfit, William Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington Pym, C. Guy
Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans) Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Randles, John S.
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. H'rb'rt John Leng, Sir John Rankin, Sir James
Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Leveson-Gower, Fred' rick N. S. Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn Lewis, John Herbert Ratcliff, R. F.
Gordon, Maj. Evans (T'r H mlets Llewellyn, Evan Henry Rattigan, Sir William Henry
Gore, Hn G RC Ormsby-(Salop Lloyd-George, David Rea, Russell
Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc. Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. Reed, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff)
Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham Reid, James (Greenock)
Goulding, Edward Alfred Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S. Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries
Graham, Henry Robert Lough, Thomas Renshaw, Charles Bine
Grant, Corrie Lowe, Francis William Renwick, George
Greene, Sir E W (B'ry S Edm'nds Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge
Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green Spear, John Ward Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Ritchie, Rt Hn. Chas. Thomson Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich) Welby, Lt-Col A C E (Taunton
Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts)
Roberts, William Snowdon Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset) White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Roe, Sir Thomas Stanley, Lord (Lanes.) Whiteley, George (York, W. R.
Rolleston, Sir John F. L. Stewart Sir Mark J. M'Taggart Whiteley, H (Ashton und. Lyne
Rollit, Sir Albert, Kaye Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jonn M. Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Ropner, Colonel Robert Stock, James Henry Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Round, James Stone, Sir Benjamin Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Runciman, Walter Strachey, Sir Edward Williams, Rt Hn J Powell (Birm
Russell, T. W. Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley Wills, Sir Frederick
Rutherford, John Talbot, Lord E (Chichester) Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- Talbot, Rt. Hn J G (Oxf'd Univ Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)
Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander Taylor, Theodore Cooke Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid
Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse Tennant, Harold John Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Saunderson, Rt. Hn Col Edwd J Thomas, David Alfr'd (Merthyr Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)
Scott, Chas. Frestwich (Leigh) Thomas, J A (Glam'rgan, Gower Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks)
Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln) Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.) Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath
Seton-Karr, Henry Thorburn, Sir Walter Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd
Sharpe, William Edward T. Thornton, Percy M. Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) Tomkinson, James Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart
Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.) Toulmin, George Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Shaw-Stewart. M. H. (Renfrew) Trevelyan, Charles Philips Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Shipman, Dr. John G. Tritton, Charles Ernest Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward Younger, William
Sinclair, Louis (Romford) Ure, Alexander
Skewes-Cox, Thomas Valentia, Viscount
Smith, James Parker (Lanarks) Wallace, Robert TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Smith, Hon. W. F D. (Strand) Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) Sir William Walrond and
Soares, Ernest J. Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) Mr. Anstruther.
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E. Joyce, Michael O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Labouchere, Henry O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.
Blake, Edward Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal W. O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Roland, John Leamy, Edmund O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)
Burke, E. Haviland- Lundon, W. O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Crean, Eugene MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Power, Patrick Joseph
Cremer, William Randall MacVeagh, Jeremiah Reddy, M.
Delany, William M'Govern, T. Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Dillon, John M'Hugh, Patrick A. Redmond, William (Clare)
Donelan, Captain A. M'Kean John Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Ffrench, Peter M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) Sullivan, Donal
Flynn, James Christopher Nannetti, Joseph P.
Gilhooly, James Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) TELLERS FOE THE NOES—
Hammond, John O'Brien, James F X. (Cork) Sir Thomas Esmonde and
Hayden, John Patrick O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'rary Mid Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

Resolution to be reported tomorrow; Committee to sit again tomorrow.

Back to