§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £2,190,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge for the staff for Engineer services, and expenditure for Royal Engineer works, buildings, and repairs, at home and abroad (including purchases), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903."
§ (7.22.) MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid that several Members of the Committee would like some information with regard to the item in respect of the works at Aldershot and Salisbury Plain. The cost of the works at both these places was divided between the Works Vote and this Vote. The item in this Vote under which that matter arose was a special grant for barracks, and so on. He believed it was generally conceded that there must be a great deal of such work at both places. Another item he wished to refer to was on page 70, where there was a large sum taken for the acquisition of land for the erection of torpedo factories, etc. The 1073 original work was to cost £40,000, the, amount already voted for that purpose, including revotes, was £70,000, and the probable expenditure to the 31st of March was put at £30,000. Why should so much be required to be spent for factories for the manufacture of army torpedoes? He would very much like to know what a torpedo factory for the Army was. The hon. Member also commented upon the item for the reconstruction of the drainage of the London Wellington Barracks, which, he said, struck him as being very curious. For years it was known that these barracks were in a shameful condition of drainage, and for a long time complaints had been made with regard to them. Last year the Government put down £3,000 as the estimated cost of repairing the drains, but only asked for £1,000. That was a most curious proceeding, because if anything had to be done all at one time, he should have thought it was repairing drains. But the present state of things was even more peculiar, because the estimate of that expenditure had now risen to £7,500, and only £2,000 was to be spent this year, making in all £3,000 out of £7,500. This was draining by driblets, but in his opinion the work should be all done at once. This item also seemed to include certain buildings which were not down in the Vote. At least, he assumed that that was the case, as they were not mentioned elsewhere. With regard to ranges, he noticed several items on page 72 of the Estimate. He did not know whether he would be in order in referring to new ranges, as there was no new range in the Vote, but a good deal of money was being spent in improving existing rifle ranges, and he would like to know what exactly was being done. Were the Government putting up penetrable instead of impenetrable targets, or were they enlarging the rifle ranges so as to make them available for a larger number of people? He was afraid the money put down did not point to a large amount of enlargement of the ranges. He would very much like to know what was being done in the way of providing increased range accommodation for shooting.
§ (7.31.) MR. COCHRANE (Ayrshire, N.)said the question of rifle ranges was a very important one, and he desired information as to what was being done to provide sufficient rifle ranges in the 1074 country. The question of training our soldiers in rifle-shooting was one of vital importance, which had been expatiated upon by all leaders of men in the country, including the present Commander-in-Chief and, he believed, the Prime Minister. Men could not learn to, shoot without ranges being provided, and it was now very often found that ranges, previously available were being closed consequence of the increase of population in the immediate neighbourhood. Short ranges were an excellent substitute for long ranges where the latter could not be obtained, and though the practice was not so interesting, men were able to learn to shoot exceedingly well at them. Such ranges could be provided in populous districts, and those were the very districts it was desirable to get at. Men took an enormous interest in learning rifle-shooting if only they had the least chance of perfecting themselves in it. When, however, an endeavour was made to provide a short safety range in the neighbourhood of a populous town, those interested could get no advice or assistance whatsoever. He suggested that there should be some expert at hand to go down and advise on the construction in such cases, and say whether the range was suitable and would be passed when made. Last year the Under Secretary of State for War in another place stated that a sum of £75,000 had been allocated to local ranges, and it would be interesting to know how much of that money had been expended. In other countries there were a great many short ranges. The Swiss were excellent shots, and lie believed that three-fourths of their ranges were short ranges. In South Africa one could not fail to be struck with the number of short ranges. There was one on nearly every Boer farm, and at no very great distance a long range at which the men might practice. Another point was with regard to the acquisition of land. Under the Military Lands Act there was power compulsorily to purchase land for ranges, but there was no power by which a local authority could hire land for such a purpose. That was a matter which might very well be considered. In his studies on this subject, he found that the difficulties now encountered were not dissimilar to those met with centuries ago, as by a Statute passed in 1457 football and golf were 1075 cried down in order that the young men might devote themselves to archery practice. He hoped the Secretary of State would give this matter his serious consideration.
§ *(7.39.) MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE (Bristol, E.)desired to endorse in their entirety the remarks of the hon. Member on the question of rifle ranges. In this country, however, it would be almost impossible for troops, except in one or two particularly open situations, to shoot at a range of over 500 yards. Although no doubt it was essential that some practice should be indulged in at longer ranges than that, yet for all practical purposes a range of 500 yards would be ample for Volunteers. But it was no good making ranges unless facilities were afforded to Volunteers and troops for getting to them, and at present sufficient extra provision was not made in the Estimates to meet that most pressing want of the poorer Volunteer corps. He hoped that in the future the Secretary of State would be able to induce the Treasury to grant a larger allowance for this particular purpose. He also desired some further information with regard to the separation of the military from the civil side of the Royal Engineers. In the opening statement of the Secretary of State it was mentioned that a very important change had been, or was in process of being, made in the organisation of the Royal Engineers. At present the Engineers built barracks and fortifications, made drains, and did a great deal of civil work which it was not really their duty to do, with the result that a certain amount of their military work was neglected. A suggestion was made before the War Office Reorganisation Committee that pattern plans of barracks should be kept at the War Office. Such a system was in operation in India, and if a new barracks was to be built, a pattern plan was produced from the headquarters of the Army in India, which, with very few alterations, could be adapted to any special locality, with the result that a great saving was effected in the preparation of plans. That was a not unimportant point on which perhaps the Secretary of State could say a word. There was 1076 no doubt that if economies were possible at the War Office, it was mainly in connection with the cost of erecting buildings such as were now in process of erection at Salisbury Plain and other places. That was, perhaps, the most extravagant side of the War Office, and the expenditure, if carefully looked after, might be materially lessened. Another point to which he desired to refer was the question of married quarters. Most of them were in a state which was not creditable to the Army, and would not be allowed by the local sanitary authority if those married quarters fell within their control. They were not large enough, nor sufficiently well ventilated nor drained. He thought something ought to be done to meet the obvious requirements of the married men in the Army. They could not expect a soldier to get that class of woman for a wife which they all desired him to have if he was obliged to take her to one single room in the barracks which was overlooked by other quarters. It was not more than a generation ago that the married men in the barracks were simply separated by a curtain drawn across the quarters. At the present time the married quarters were far too near the ordinary barracks, and there ought to be further separation and increased accommodation. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would tell him what was the increase of married quarters at Malta consequent upon the establishment of two battalions there. They had been told that the increase of married accommodation at Malta would he very small, and that a great number of men would he allowed separation allowances. He thought a little information upon these points would be exceedingly useful. With regard to the expenditure at Salisbury Plain, he saw that £750,000 had been taken for that purpose. Perhaps they would be told something about this expenditure. He wished to know what time would be spent there putting up barracks, and he wanted to have some general explanation of the policy of the Government at Salisbury Plain. He noticed that £13,000 had been taken for the provision of military prisons. Upon the Home Office Vote they were told that two or three prisons had been handed over by the Home Office to the War Office, and they were also told that the position of the Inspector General of 1077 Prisons was being discussed between the two Offices. As provision was now being made for the increase of military prisons, they might now be told something about the future position of the Inspector General of Prisons, and also what prison accommodation was going to be provided another for the future.
§ (7.50.) SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid that five or six years ago at Yarmouth, in consequence of observations made by Ministers in this House upon the importance of providing ranges, the Corporation of Yarmouth acquired an admirable rifle range and camping ground for Volunteers. They got the military authorities to lay out the ground and make the arrangements, all of which was done at the expense of the Corporation on the strength of the declaration made by War Ministers. In consequence of recent changes, the Volunteers had not come to Yarmouth for some time. The Volunteers from the Midlands and the Northern Counties used to come to Yarmouth to use that camping ground and range, but now they had ceased to come. He suggested that in framing the regulations for the training of Volunteers the districts in which ranges had been provided by local authorities should be borne in mind. It was most discouraging, because other corporations would now see that when they acted upon the advice of the War Office in providing ranges their money was wasted. He wished to protest against the way this Vote was made up, because fortifications and artillery ranges had been mixed up. He wished to know if, under the numerous headings in this Vote, any money was being devoted to fortifications around London. Such things as fortifications were entirely distinct from ranges, and ought to be put down separately. Large sums of money had been put down under "submarine mining," and throughout the Estimates they would always find that item. In his opinion submarine mining was overdone, and he thought this word prove a great danger. There was also another sum of money put down for Brennan torpedoes a question which was discussed last night. He noticed that in this respect two civilian officers were employed, one at £700 a year, and other at £500. Was 1078 it true that they could not find officers capable of managing. Brennan torpedoes without having to call in civilian officers? Perhaps his noble friend would explain what was a civilian officer, and tell the Committee why one got £700 a year and another £500 for managing these Brennan torpedoes.
§ (7.58) MR. MUNRO FERGUSON (Leith Burghs)said that they had a discussion the other night upon the Volunteer question, and the Secretary the State for War was urged to strengthen the Department which provided rifle ranges. It seemed to him that if the general officers had powers delegated to them, with regard to new rifle ranges provided by local authorities and others, the provision of ranges might be more readily undertaken. There was a great want of these ranges at the present time. One of the recommendations of the Committee which considered this question was that such powers should be delegated to the general officers. He would like to know if any of the recommendations of the Committee were being carried out. There seemed to be no reason why commanding officers should not receive power to deal with such matters as rifle ranges in their districts. He was glad that the Vote made some provision for various attractions to recruits. He agreed with his hon. Friend the Member of East Bristol that some more information should be given as to the provision of married quarters. The Commander-in-Chief had shown himself interested in temperance associations. These were points which would do a great deal towards attracting men into the Army. We were at the present moment constructing a large amount of barrack accommodation, and we were told that it was not to be left altogether to the Royal Engineers in future. It would be interesting to know how far the new barracks were to be provided with the additions. Although the additions were numerous, only a comparatively small sum was to be voted.
§ (8.3.) THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,) Lancashire, Westhoughtonsaid that his hon. friend the Member for Lichfield had asked why no money was to be voted this year for Aldershot and Salis- 1079 bury. The reason was that last year large sums were obtained for building and reconstructing the camps, and it had been found unnecessary to ask for more money this year. The item with regard to Chatham had reference to the provision of greater space for the Navy. He entirely agreed with those hon. Members who wished to see our ranges improved, but the difficulties were great. He had pointed out before that when the Government proceeded to buy land in the open market it was extraordinary what a value the land possessed in the eyes of the sellers. If the land was bought compulsorily, the process was also expensive. The Government were taking money under the present Vote for improving existing ranges, and in previous loans they had taken large sums for providing ranges. They could not do all these things at once, but they were doing what they could in the way of purchasing new ranges and altering old ranges rendered unfit by the use of the modern rifle. He would inquire into the case of the range at Yarmouth and other corporation ranges. No one would wish to make the patriotic efforts of Town Councils unavailable, but it must be remembered that, apart from shooting, when the Volunteers went into camp there was the important question of accommodation for drill to be kept in view. If ranges could be procured on the manœuvre grounds they should be given the preference, but there was no desire to interfere with patriotic effort. With regard to the separation of the civil from the military duties of the Engineers, a Committee was sitting to consider the whole case and to make recommendations. He was sure his hon. friend would see that it was impossible for him to make a statement on the subject until the report of the Committee had been received. He hoped the Committee would be able to present a scheme which would be economical and would allow the Engineers to devote their whole attention to that work which was most useful for them in time of war. Provision was being made in this Vote for married quarters. It was a most important question, being connected with the whole question of housing, in which everybody at the present moment was interested. They were as rapidly as possible improving the old barracks and building new ones, and they were being built entirely 1080 in accord with the spirit of the present day. He had no particulars to give to, the Committee at the present moment, as he did not know exactly what the circumstances of the case were. The increase of the Estimate for Wellington Barracks was due to the complete reconstruction of the drains of the barracks. He hoped they would be able to spend the whole of the money obtained this year, and that the work would be finished off next year. The Commander-in-Chief was very much interested in the provision of temperance rooms. Everything that could be done would be done to provide rooms for Army temperance purposes. (8.10.)
§ (8.40.) MR. COURTENAY WARNERexpressed his dissatisfaction with the, answers given by the noble Lord with regard to the Wellington Barracks and the rifle ranges. The noble Lord had stated that the drainage of Wellington Barracks was not being done piecemeal, but anything more piecemeal than spending £1,000 one year, £2,000 another year, and the balance of £4,300 the third year it was impossible to conceive. He did not intend to move a reduction, but he suggested that the matter should be reconsidered, and that this work should be done at one time. With regard to the rifle ranges, the noble Lord had stated that it was usually quicker to acquire the land by private arrangement than by compulsory powers, and no doubt that was so if it could be done, but he had noticed more often than not two or three years was absorbed in trying to come to an arrangement privately, and in the end compulsory powers had to be resorted to, which took up further time, whereas if compulsory powers had been taken in the first instance, much time and expense would have been saved. One question he would put, which he had omitted to ask before; would the noble Lord say what amount was spent under the Works Loan Act in addition to this Vote, so that the Committee might form some idea of what it was that this Vote supplemented.
§ (8.46.) MR. MUNRO FERGUSONalso complained of the unsatisfactory answer given in respect to the rifle ranges, and many other matters connected with "works" within the military districts. He said the fact 1081 was that the War Office, with the present pressure upon them, were unable to undertake much in the way of enquiries, and must necessarily leave much of the work they desired to see done untouched. The acquisition of rifle ranges could only be done by a devolution of power. With a devolution of powers on the Generals commanding the districts, there could be no difficulty. That was one of the recommendations of the Dawkins Committee. The Generals commanding the districts were very competent men, and they could easily look after these matters and do not work which the War Office were unable to present to do. It was stated last year that there would be a devolution of powers, and he wished to know whether powers would be given to the general officers commanding districts to look into local needs.
§ MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid he desired to emphasise the point of his hon. friend as to the devolution of powers to the general officers commanding districts. With regard to works in those districts, he advocated powers being devolved upon them involving expenditure on works up to £5,000. He also suggested that when once money had been allocated to a particular work, the general officer commanding a district should be entitled to spend the money as he thought best.
§ (8.51) LORD STANLEYI can only give the hon. Member half an assurance, for this reason. I am absolutely in accord with him and the hon. Member for Leith who spoke on this point. Devolution, I believe, is the only satisfactory way in which we shall get
§ these matters throngh, but at the present moment the whole of the question as to the future of the engineering branch of the War Office is under consideration. It is no use making rules and regulations now that, when the Report comes out, will have to be altered. We do not want to lay down a hard and fast line until everything has been considered. But we have done this. We have told the general officers commanding districts that sums are allocated for certain works, and we have asked them to make their own suggestions and their own plans, and, without actually allowing them to make the contracts, we are, as far as possible, taking their advice on every subject and are following it out in every subject connected with administration. Therefore, without binding ourselves to a hard and fast line, we are doing all that hon. Members really want. I assure them nobody is more sanguine as to the good effects of devolution than my right hon. friend and myself.
§ MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSECan you let us see the Report you refer to?
§ LORD STANLEYIt is not issued yet.
§ MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEBut will you?
§ LORD STANLEYMy right hon. friend will consider the matter.
§ (8.55.) Question put.
§ The Committee divded:—Ayes, 178; Noes, 56. (Division List No. 72.)
1083| AYES. | ||
| Aeland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex F. | Blundell, Colonel Henry | Charrington, Spencer |
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Bond, Edward | Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H.A.E. |
| Allan, William (Gateshead) | Bousfield, William Robert | Coghill, Douglas Harry |
| Allen, Charles P.(Glouc., Stroud | Brassey, Albert | Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse |
| Arehdale, Edward Mervyn | Brigg, John | Colomb, SirJohn Charles Ready |
| Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. | Brodrick, Rt. Hon, St. John | Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole |
| Arrol, Sir William | Bryce, Rt. Hon. James | Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Bullard, Sir Harry | Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) |
| Austin, Sir John | Caldwell, James | Dalrymple, Sir Charles |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Cameron, Robert | Dalziel, James Henry |
| Baird, John George Alexander | Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Davenport, William Bromley- |
| Balcarres, Lord | Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Davies, Sir Horatio D.(Chatham |
| Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. | Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire | Denny, Colonel |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Cawley, Frederick | Dewar, T. R (T'rH'mlets, S. Geo. |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry C. | Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm. | Dickinson, Robert Edmond |
| Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. | Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore'r | Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
| Bigwood, James | Chapman, Edward | Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield |
| Dorington, Sir John Edward | Lawson, John Grant | Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) |
| Doughty, George | Layland-Barratt, Francis | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Rolleston, Sir John F. L. |
| Duke, Henry Edward | Llewellyn, Evan Henry | Royds, Clement Molyneux |
| Duncan, J. Hastings | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine | Sadler, Col. Sammel Alexander |
| Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.) | Lowe, Francis Wiliam | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) |
| Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward | Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Fenwick, Charles | Macdona, John Comming | Skewes-Cox, Thomas |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) | Maelver, David (Liverpool) | Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside |
| Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Mane'r | M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) | Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.) |
| Finch, George H. | Majendie, James A. H. | Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich) |
| Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Mansfield, Horace Rendell | Stanley, Lord (Lanes.) |
| Fisher, William Hayes | Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F. | Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart |
| Fitzoy, Hon. Edward Algernon | Maxwell, W JH(Dumfries-hire | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Flannery, Sir Forteseue | Molesworth, Sir Lewis | Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley |
| Flower, Ernest | Moore, William (Antrim, N.) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Forster, Henry William | More, Robt, Jasper (Shropshire) | Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan,E.) |
| Foster, Philips S (Warwick, S. W. | Morgan, David J (Walthamstow | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr |
| Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) | Morrell, George Herbert | Thomas, J A Glamorgan, Gower |
| Gardner, Eruest | Morrason, James Archibald | thorburn, Sir Walter |
| Garfit, William | Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford) | Tuke, Sir John Batty |
| Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn | Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. | Valentia, Viscount |
| Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.) | Murray, Rt Hn. A Graham (Bute | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Goschen, Hon. George Joachim | Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) | Wason, John Catheart (Orkney) |
| Greene, Sir E W (B'ryS Edm'nds | Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath | Webb, Colonel William George |
| Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.) | Nicholson, William Graham | Welby, Lt.-Col. A C E (Taunton |
| Groves, James Grimble | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd |
| Hall, Edward Marshall | Palmer, Walter (Salisbury | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Hambro, Charles Eric | Pease, Herbt. Pike (Darlington) | White, Luke(York, E. R.) |
| Harmsworth, R. Leicester | Pierpoint, Robert | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Harris, Frederick Leverton | Platt-Higgins, Frederick | Willoughby, de Eresby, Lord |
| Haslam, Sir Alfred S. | Plummer, Walton R. | Willox, Sir John Archibald |
| Havter Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | Wilson, A.Stanley (York, E.R.) |
| Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.) | Pretyman, Ernest George | Wilson, Fred W. (Norfolk, Mid.) |
| Henderson, Alexander | Price, Robert John | Wilson, John (Glasgow) |
| Hogg, Lindsay | Purvis Robert | Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath) |
| Holland, William Henry | Randles, John S. | Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson |
| Hudson, George Bickersteth | Rasch, Major Frederic Carne | wylie, Alexander |
| Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) | Ratcliff, R. F. | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Johnston, William (Belfast) | Rea, Russell | |
| Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) | Reid, James (Greenock) | |
| Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth | Renwick, George | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Kitson, Sir James | Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green | Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther. |
| Law, Andrew Bonar | Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) | Healy, Timothy Michael | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) |
| Ambrose, Robert | Jordan, Jeremiah | O'Dowd, John |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Joyce, Michael | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) |
| Blake, Edward | Kennedy, Patrick James | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N. |
| Boland, John | Lundon, W. | O'Malley, William |
| Campbell, John (Arunagh, S.) | MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. | O'Mara, James |
| Cogan, Denis J. | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Mac Veagh, Jerenniah | O'Shee, Jame-John |
| Crean, Eugene | M'Hugh, Patrick A. | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Cremer, William Randal | M'Kean, John | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Cullinan J. | M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) | Roche, John |
| Delany, William | Mooney, John J. | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel |
| Doogan, P. C. | Murphy, John | Sullivan, Donal |
| Farrell, James Patrick | Nannetti, Joseph P. | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Ffrench, Peter | Nolan, Col.John P. (Galway,N.) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Flynn, James Christopher | Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) | Young, Samuel |
| Gilhooly, James | O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) | |
| Hammond, John | O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) | Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien. |
| Hayden, John Patrick | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) |
§ 10. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,786,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge for retired pay, half-pay, and other non-effective charges 1084 for officers, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903."
1085§ *(9.6) COLONEL LEGGE (St. George's, Hanover Square)desired to call attention to certain matters connected with the reserve of officers. That reserve was composed of officers who had retired from the Army on pensions or with gratuities, and certain other officers. These officers either voluntarily retired or were retired compulsorily. Those to whom the latter remark applied, were retired compulsorily not because of age or inefficiency, but in order to keep up the flow of promotion in the junior ranks. These officers, on retirement, retained their rank and were entitled to wear the uniform of their regiment. They appeared in the Army list, in the general list of the reserve of officers, and also in the regimental list; and they were liable to be called on for service in time of emergency. That time of emergency arose two years ago, and a certain number of these officers were called on, a great many to serve at home, and a few abroad. When they were brought back to the Army it was in their regimental rank, and not with the Army rank, the rank they retained when they left the service. This was felt to be a great injustice. He had been told that it was impossible to treat them in any other way, that it would not have been fair to bring them back to the regiment and stop the promotion of officers then serving. It was quite true that the promotion of those officers would have been temporarily impeded, but when it was considered that many of these officers had been placed on the reserve to keep up the flow of promotion of those serving with the colours, he did not think there would have been any great injustice in allowing them temporarily to come back to the service, not only with the rank they held in the regiment, but with the rank they held in the Army. He had also been told that there were difficulties in the way of bringing them back to the regiments, although they were borne on the reserve lists of the regiments to which they formerly belonged. But there need have been no difficulty about that. It would have been quite easy to have brought them back, perhaps not to the places they originally held, but certainly in their rank, even though they were put at the bottom of the list. That was 1086 done where an officer exchanged from one regiment to another, and although he ranked as junior, he retained his Army rank in the service. Another point was with regard to the payment of these officers. Officers who had retired on a pension, when brought back to the Army, received the regimental pay of their rank, in which that pension was included. In the case of officers who retired with a gratuity, it was true the royal warrant laid down that they should be called upon to pay something back when recalled to the service, but the War Office apparently Lad such difficulty a few years ago in enforcing that repayment, that they waived their claim, and these officers were allowed to retain the whole of the gratuity. Therefore, these officers were serving under different conditions front the officers who had retired on pension. It had also to be borne in mind that the latter had served considerably longer and lead had had more experience than the former. It was a great mistake that more of these officers had not elm employed. Regiments had become short of officers, and the places of those who had fallen out had been supplied by sending out very young boys indeed. One of the most distressing things connected with the war was the large number of very young officers who had lost their lives. He really thought that some of these older officers of experience might have been sent out, and the younger men kept a little longer at home until they were more fully trained and could better take their places in the field. Under present arrangements, the reserve of officers was composed almost entirely of field officers and captains; there were no subalterns available. If there was to be a reserve of officers it should be a proper reserve, one of all ranks, who might be called upon to fill vacancies in regiments as they occurred. A further point was that according to the royal warrant, officers so recalled were eligible for promotion, and also, under certain circumstances, to increase of pension. He had not, however, heard of a single instance in which such an officer had received either promotion or increase of pension, and he thought the War Office had taken very good care that they should not do so. He desired to impress upon the War 1087 Office the necessity of having a real reserve of officers, and of treating them fairly when they had them; and in order to raise the point he moved to reduce the Vote by £100.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,785,900, be granted for the said Service."—(Colonel Legge.)
§ (9.15) THE SECRETARY or STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,) Surrey, GuildfordI think my hon. friend is perfectly entitled to move this reduction of £100, bearing in mind the position he takes up with regard to this subject. I think, however, that his contentions are hardly borne out by the facts. I may say in two or three words that I sympathise very much with my hon. and gallant friend's position in regard to retired officers. It is perfectly obvious that these officers have been placed under difficult onerous obligations extending over two or three years, and I quite recognise that their case is a very difficult one. I am riot in a postion tonight to make any promises on the subject to my hon. and gallant friend. Before I came to the War Office, the question as to what emoluments they should receive had
§ been decided upon, and it was not anticipated at first that the call on their services would be so prolonged as it has been. The position of these gentlemen was settled between the War Office and the Treasury before I took office. I sympathise very much with them, seeing that they have been called upon, at considerable sacrifice, to place their services at the country's disposal. I can only-say, however, that, with the Commander-in-Chief, I am carefully studying what the position is and what it may be in our power to do for these officers on whom the call has fallen so heavily. I am afraid I cannot say more. I am looking into the whole question in a sympathetic spirit, and I hope I shall be able to make some answer upon it before the question is again discussed. I hope that my hon. and gallant friend will not press his Amendment.
§ COLONEL LEGGEI beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ (9.19.) Original Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 178; Noes, 55. (Division List No. 73.)
1089| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. | Charrington, Spencer | Foster, Sir Walter(Derby Co.) |
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Gardner, Ernest |
| Allan, William (Gateshead) | Coghill, Douglas Harry | Garfit, William |
| Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud | Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin& Nairn) |
| Archdale, Edward Mervyn | Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready | Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.) |
| Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. | Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole | Goschen, Hon. George Joachim |
| Arrol, Sir William | Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Greene, Sir E. W (B'ry S Edm'nds) |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) | Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.) |
| Austin, Sir John | Dairymple, Sir Charles | Groves, James Grimble |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Dalziel, James Henry | Hall, Edward Marshall |
| Baird, John George Alexander | Davenport, William Bromley- | Hambro, Charles Eric |
| Balcarres, Lord | Davies, Sir Horatio D.(Chatham | Harris, Frederick Leverton |
| Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. | Denny, Colonel | Haslam, Sir Alfred S. |
| Banbury, Frederick George | Dewar, T. R. (T'rH'ml'ts, S. Geo. | Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Dickinson, Robert Edmond | Heath, James (Staffords. N. W. |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry C. | Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. |
| Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. | Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield | Henderson, Alexander |
| Bigwood, James | Dorington, Sir John Edward | Hogg, Lindsay |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Doughty, George | Holland, William Henry |
| Bond, Edward | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) |
| Bousfield, William Robert | Duke, Henry Edward | Johnston, William (Belfast) |
| Brassey, Albert | Duncan, J. Hastings | Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) |
| Brigg, John | Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.) | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward | Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury) |
| Bullard, Sir Harry | Fenwick, Charles | Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth |
| Caldwell, James | Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r | Kitson, Sir James |
| Cameron, Robert | Finch, George H. | Law, Andrew Bonar |
| Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Lawson, John Grant |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Fisher, William Hayes | Layland-Barratt, Francis |
| Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire | Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage |
| Cawley, Frederick | Flannery, Sir Fortescue | Llewellyn, Evan Henry |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm. | Flower, Ernest | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine |
| Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r | Forster, Henry William | Lowe, Francis William |
| Chapman, Edward | Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W | Loyd, Archie Kirkman |
| Macdona, John Cumming | Purvis, Robert | Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E) |
| M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) | Randles, John S. | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr |
| Majendie, James A. H. | Rasch, Major Frederick Carne | Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower |
| Mansfield, Horace Rendall | Ratcliff, R. F. | Thorburn, Sir Walter |
| Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F. | Rea, Russell | Tomkinson, James |
| Maxwell, W.J.H(D'mfriesshire | Reid, James (Greenock) | Tuke, Sir John Batty |
| Molesworth, Sir Lewis | Renwick, George | Valentia, Viscount |
| Moore, William (Antrim, N.) | Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire) | Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson | Webb, Colonel William George |
| Morgan, David J.(W'lthamstow) | Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) | Welby, Lt-Col. A. C. E.(Taunt'n) |
| Morrell, George Herbert | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Morrison, James Archibald | Rolleston, Sir John F. L. | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Morton, Arthur H. A. Deptford | Royds, Clement Molyneux | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. | Russell, T. W. | Willox, Sir John Archibald |
| Murray, RtHn. A. Graham (Bute | Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.) |
| Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) | Wilson. Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid. |
| Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) | Shipman, Dr. John G. | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Skewes-Cox, Thomas | Wilson, John (Glasgow) |
| Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) | Smith, H.C(N'rth'mb. Tyneside | Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath |
| Parkes, Ebenezer | Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.) | Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson |
| Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington | Soares, Ernest J. | Wylie, Alexander |
| Pierpoint, Robert | Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich) | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Platt-Higgins, Frederick | Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) | |
| Plummer, Walter R. | Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart | |
| Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | Stone, Sir Benjamin | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Pretyman, Ernest George | Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley | Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther. |
| Price, Robert John | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester). | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) | Healy, Timothy Michael | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) |
| Ambrose, Robert | Jordan, Jeremiah | O'Dowd, John |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Joyce, Michael | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) |
| Blake, Edward | Kennedy, Patrick James | O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N. |
| Boland, John | Lundon, W. | O'Malley, William |
| Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) | MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. | O'Mara, James |
| Cogan, Denis J. | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | O'Shauglmessy, P. J. |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | O'Shee, James John |
| Crean, Eugene | M'Hugh, Patrick A. | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Cremer, William Randal | M'Kean, John | Redmond, John E. (Waterford |
| Cullinan, J. | M?Killop, W. (Sligo, North) | Roche, John |
| Delany, William | Mooney, John J. | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel |
| Doogan, P. C. | Murphy, John | Sullivan, Donal |
| Farrell, James Patrick | Nannetti, Joseph P. | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Ffrench, Peter | Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N.) | Young, Samuel |
| Flynn, James Christopher | Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) | |
| Gilhooly, James | O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) | |
| Hammond, John | O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Hardy, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) | Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien. |
| Hayden, John Patrick | O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.) |
§ 11. £1,747,000, Pensions and other Non-Effective Charges for Warrant Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers, Men, and others.
(9.35.) SIR H.CAMPBELLBANNERMANMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can state what arrangements he proposes to make for the purpose of having a further discussion on what is called his scheme—his new proposals—with regard to the Army. It was understood that there was to he some opportunity after the 21st of this month, and a good many embers are interested to know whether the right hon. Gentleman can say anything definite as to the time the discussion will take place.
§ MR. BRODRICKMy right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury will make a statement on Thursday after questions with regard to business. I understand that Thursday id next week is tinder consideration as the day for the discussion.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANI think it was understood that Thursday in next week was to he given to the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill.
§ MR. BRODRICKOn Thursday my right hon. friend will make his statement. It is thoroughly understood there will he a day for the discussion of the new proposals as to the Army.
§ Resolutions to be reported upon Thursday; Committee to sit again tomorrow.