§ £530,000, Medical Establishment, Pay, etc.1354
§ MR. BURDETT-COUTTS
said when the sitting was suspended he was stating that the scheme of reforms of the right hon. Gentleman did not provide against disaster in the time of a great war. Before explaining that he wished to remind the Committee of what had been reformed, and to lay it up to the credit of the right hon. Gentleman. First, there had been a wise and healthy association of the civilian with the military medical element, not only for the purposes of reform, but in the normal administration of the Army Medical Service. Four civilian medical men had been placed permanently on the Advisory Board. In stating these reforms he did not propose, for want of time, to criticise the manner in which they had been carried out. If he did he should have something to say about the unreasonableness of expecting to get eminent civilians to share in the multifarious duties of that Board for the payment of £200 a year. Of course they knew that two very distinguished surgeons, Sir Frederick Treves and Sir Alfred Fripp, were now performing that service. But when the enthusiasm of war was over, if they wanted to make the civilian element a permanent factor in the normal administration of the Army Medical Service and to get the best men for the purpose, they could not do so for £200 a year. It was trading on their patriotism. They had better pay them nothing and let them have the honour and unmixed gratitude for rendering a public service, which certainly belong to the gentlemen which certainly belong to the gentlemen he had named. But what he feared most was that this civilian element would be gradually eliminated so far as its practical functions went, and that the administration would fall back into that old routine of departmentalism under which it slept for so many years, waking only at the sound of war to produce on of its perennial medical disasters. The second great reform had been and increase of pay to the Army medical officer which naturally improved his position. The third had been an increase of numbers, about the advisability of which there was some doubt—save in one respect; that so far as an increase of number was necessary in order to give the Army medical officer study-leave and opportunities for self-improvement, and therefore to raise his efficiency—so far it was legitimate. It was not legitimate, as it 1355 was intended to make the Army Medical Service independent of civilian aid. The fourth reform was the granting of this study—leave and facilities for self-improvement, which the Army medical officer was always seeking for, and which he rarely could obtain, and then had to pay for himself. It always seemed to him a great reproach to all concerned that after his entrance examination the Army medical officer had no opportunities of study afforded him in a profession in which continuous and well-directed study was quite as necessary as practice. Under this head he would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what had become of the proposed London Military Hospital and Military School? The fifth reform, arid one of the most important, had been the introduction of promotion by merit rather than mere seniority, this promotion by merit being secured by a mingled system of examination and selection. The sixth reform was applied to what was shown to be in the last war a crying evil—the condition of the orderlies. Their status and pay had been improved. The absurdity of strong men, who ought to be at the front, struggling over clerks' work at the base; of thinking that every man, because he was an orderly, could be an efficient nurse, which. required three years' training,—or could be a good cook; the absurdity of not differentiating from these skilled departments the orderlies who were only suited for general labour; all this, they learned from a speech made by the Director-General last October, had been recognised and the orderlies had been classified according to their various functions. The seventh reform—he did not know what progress had been made in it, but it was promised in the speech of the Director-General to which he had referred—was the founding of a sanitary department. The last and greatest reform of all had been a full recognition of the principle of female nursing in military hospitals, and the organisation of an efficient female nursing service under the intelligent and experienced supervision of Her Majesty the Queen.
He had given a full list of the reforms that had been carried out, or were included in the scheme, or were promised by those responsible for the Depart- 1356 ment; and he was naturally the first to admit they were wise and prudent reforms, because they were all pointed out, and argued one by one, with instances of what was going on under his own eyes in South Africa, in the series of articles he wrote to the Times. Those articles were entirely devoted to the question of reform of the Army Medical Service, to the crying need for it, and for a more reasonable and generous treatment of Army medical officer, until the time came when the state of things out there required a drastic and immediate change, and the state of things here—the dream of satisfaction into which the public hand been lulled—made it unavoidable in the interests of humanity to bring public opinion to bear on the subject. He had no fault to find with the right hon. Gentleman for what he had done. But it was what he had not done that would involve us at any moment in great danger if we were plunged into another war. It was so true that it almost sounded like a platitude now, to say that we could never maintain an Army medical service in time of peace equal to the demands of great war. It was an axiom that applied generally to the question of Army reform, but specifically and most of all to the Army Medical Service. It was all very well to prefect our normal system for peace time; but one of the objects, perhaps the most important object in doing so, was to be able to elasticise and expand it at any moment for a great war. The two things ought to be inseparable if we were to have economy and efficiency and be ready for war.
In this respect the Army Medical Service was in a peculiar position, and differed from other departments of the Army. They could not always get artillery or trained cavalry or scouts of other skilled factors in the field force from outside; but they had always ready at hand an unlimited supply of civilian medical men who were willing and anxious to go out to a war. It was always so. It was so when the South African War broke out, and afterwards when the pressure was at its greatest. Why then was this civilian complement not properly utilised? What caused the breakdown? It was because there was no organization of this 1357 civilian medical aid. He should have thought this was the first and most important lesson taught by the recent war. But such an organisation was entirely absent from this great scheme of reform.
Anyone looking at the reforms would gather that the medical failure in the last war was due to the want of scientific attainment on the part of the Army doctor. Was that so? Not in the least; or only in the smallest possible measure. If they had been the most skilful physicians and surgeons in the world, or even up to the standard that this scheme contemplated, and had been paid four times what it laid down, did they suppose that would have averted the catastrophe? No. They wanted more materiel, more men, more orderlies and nurses and doctors. They would want them in the future; and they wanted them selected, not by hasty advertisement at a day's notice, but by some carefully prepared scheme of registration, or other means of securing an enlargement of their medical service, which would not only be suitable and efficient but on which they could rely at any time when the need might arise. Had anything of this sort been done? It had been a great deal talked about but had it been done? He put aside the important matters of a Militia Medical reserve, and a Volunter Medical reserve, because he did not know what had been done in those directions. The worst of it was we rover did know what had been done, and we never cared to inquire in a quasi-professional matter like this. We took things for granted, and went to sleep until one fine day we woke up and found the deluge upon us. Then we made a terrible row, and hanged someone. And then we went to sleep again. There was only one way out of this fatal cycle of disaster and attempted reform; only one way to shake off the national reproach that had run through the history of the Army Medical Service only one way to secure efficiency and economy with regard to it, and that was by a carefully thought-out scheme of civilian aid to be ready when called on by a great war. It was a monstrous thesis to put forward that a civilian doctor or surgeon could not treat a soldier. Yet it was this suggestion, born of 1358 Army medical rank, which placed the sword before the stethoscope, and fostered by departmentalism, which lay at the root of all our failures, and it was this idea which permeated the right hon. Gentleman's scheme of reform. It was perfectly obvious. Speaking at White-haven last October, the right hon. Gentleman had cited, as a proof of the success of his reform, that "whereas up to the time of the late war they were getting one candidate for two vacancies, they were now getting between two and three candidates for one vacancy." That was his great object, to enrol men in the Royal Army Medical Corps—men who had to be paid and had to be pensioned at the expense of the nation. What had that to do, what could it ever have to do, with being prepared for a great war That could only be done by civilian aid.
The methods by which civilian aid could be utilised in time of war were twofold. In the first place, there was the simple method of enlarging the numerical strength of their staff by taking into it, for the time required and no longer, civilian aid. They wanted a scheme prepared for obtaining this aid, for utilising it, for distributing it in its requisite proportions, for settling the relations of the civilian medical man to the Army medical officer, and for avoiding many other difficulties that arose in South Africa. The absence of any such scheme gave rise to untold evil. Some of it was told. At No. 8 General Hospital at Bloemfontein, where there were nearly 2,000 patients, the strained relations between the two classes of medical men disorganised the whole work. When the principal medical officer of South Africa was questioned about it, he stated that "he knew of the friction"; and he added the strange remark that he "thought the friction would go on until the machine stopped." A medical man of large practice and great experience at home would be given the rank of a lieutenant, and so be placed not only as to his rank, but as to the medical treatment of his patient under an Army medical captain or major, who had no experience at all. He could tell the Committee, if time allowed, of several cases where this occurred to the infinite detriment of the patients in the hospital; but he would only 1359 mention one. A consulting surgeon of a large hospital, a man of great experience and scientific ability, was attached to a certain hospital in the war, given the rank of lieutenant, and placed under an Army medical major. His requisitions for the barest medical necessities were refused by the major, and he had to go off to a town thirty miles away and buy them himself, which proved they could easily have been got; his prescriptions were revised by the major; cases of internal operations of a most serious and delicate kind were attempted to be removed the clay after by the major; until at last, exasperated and indignant for the patients whose lives were in his charge, the consultant surgeon threatened to punch the major's bead if he came into the wards again. And the major, thinking discretion the better part of what he supposed he would call "discipline," kept out of the wards after that. He thought, considering the number of medical practitioners there were wanting employment, that for purposes of economy to the State, and to avoid a heavy pension list, it might be used to a great extent in peace time. He found nothing about that in the scheme. But it certainly wanted careful organisation beforehand for war time.
But there was another and more important form of civilian aid in wax time, which demanded thorough organisation in time of peace They did not want only civilian medical men; they wanted civilian hospital complete and self-contained, organised and ready to go out to a war, either to take over the base hospitals and so free the trained Army medical staff to go up to the front, their proper places or not only staffed but equipped, prepared to he sent up and dotted along the lines of communication as stationary hospitals; or even prepared, if need be, to take the field, as some of them did, gallantly and efficiently in the late war. The Committee would remember—and the country would always remember—the splendid part played in the medical history of the war by the great system of civilian hospitals voluntarily and generously provided from England—from Scotland, from Ireland, from Wales, aye, and even from the colonies. But they could not rely, in providing a formal scheme for the medical needs of their Army, they had no right to rely upon the generosity and patriotism of private people. Those noble sentiments would, no doubt, always exist, but a 1360 hundred causes might prevent their taking this particular form. But if they could not rely on what was done being done again in the same way, and from the same sources, they could at least take it to a certain extent as a model, and improve on it, and make it a certainty. They could create a system of medical units for war time in connection with the large civilian hospitals and great medical schools, units with staff equipment and training, ready to go out, and engaged to go out, to a war when called on.
His hon. friend the Member for Edinburgh University made some interesting remarks about this last year. But eighteen months before that, in February, 1901, a scheme of that kind, and one upon the lines of which any satisfactory scheme in the future must be founded, was drawn up by a gentleman of great military-medical experience, and one who played a very important part, not only a practical but an originating part, in the system of voluntary civilian hospitals in the late war, and was laid before the Secretary of State for War. Long before that, he himself constantly and publicly urged the provision of some such scheme, because it was the only means by which they could place the medical service, at a moment's notice, on a war footing—with a due regard to efficiency and economy. It would save the country from "bloated armaments" in peace time, in the shape of an excessive Royal Army Medical Corps and a heavy pension list; it would save the lives and the health of our soldiers in war time, by providing them with a better medical service than they could get from any other source. What had become of this scheme and this proposal? Was it still in the state it was last October when the Director-General, speaking to the civil profession, eloquently advocated "the establishment in time of peace of medical units for service when war comes," and the perfect organisation of such units, and said—"Where are volunteer field ambulances?"—he used the word "volunteer" not in connection with that branch of the Army but as applied to the great medical schools—"above all where are our volunteer general hospitals?" And he, speaking nine months after that, but three years after the proposal was publicly put forward and argued, asked where were these things? Where was this 1361 scheme? It was an integral part of any real and effective reform of the Army Medical Service it was absolutely essential, in order to avert another disaster in war-time. It required thought and study and organisation, and careful co-ordination with the normal Army Medical Service—all of which could only be done in peace days. Where was it? What had been done, or what was being done with regard to it?
He trusted the Committee would par don him for having addressed them at such length on this Vote. It involved a matter literally of life and death to the Army—the well-being and health of our soldiers in time of peace; and in war time the saving them from death, which comes, he thought, in its most pathetic form, not on the field of battle, but in hospital. They had no reason to complain; they never had had and never should have any reason than to be other than proud, of the courage and efficiency of the Army medical officer on the field of battle. The history of the South African war was illuminated by many brilliant examples of those qualities to which no one had been more anxious to do full justice than himself. But they must bear in mind that no amount of coolness and heroism in the field could make up for an imperfect and ill-organised medical system, which was detected by the hospital in war time. No gallant dash to save a wounded lean and carry him back under heavy fire no steady imperturbable dressing of wounds in the zone of the quick-firing rifle could supply the place of that careful organisation and that combined economy and efficiency which they, as Members of Parliament, ought to demand in this department of the Army. All their efforts for reform should be directed to these aspects of the question.
§ MR. BRODRICK
said he fully recognised the services which his hon. friend had rendered in bringing this question forward. In the changes that had been suggested it was recognised that it was highly important that they should not rely on anything that might become stereotyped in the department, arid in order to avoid that they had enlisted the services of leading members of the medical profession who were in closest touch with the most recent medical 1362 developments of the day. They had been peculiarly fortunate in this respect. He had invited some of the most eminent members of the medical profession to assist him in the organisation of the department; and he could not express too strongly his gratitude to those gentlemen who had given up high fees and personal practice to sit with him on a Committee in the months of June and July giving up their time frequently from five o'clock in the afternoon to eight o'clock in the evening probing this question to the very bottom, and, having done that, had expressed themselves willing to serve on the Advisory Board at a mere nominal honorarium in order adequately to reorganize the Army Medical Department upon which so many lives depended and which embraced so many medical men. Besides the Army medical members, the Advisory Board consisted of five eminent civilian doctors and surgeons, including Sir Charles Ball, Dr. Fripp, and Sir Frederick Treves. These, gentlemen had been most constant in their attendance, attending three or four Committees a week. He thought it was, most unusual in any scientific profession to find professional men willing to give so much time to public objects. The' War Office had endeavoured to meet their views with regard to pay, with regard to the increase in numbers, and, what was more important, with regard to the increase of leave for study to be carried out in the Medical College, for which a site had been secured. In future they would be able to obtain their knowledge' of the medical profession in the very best centres for scientific research. With regard to nursing, the men had been given a special rate of pay, and the female nursing service, organised by Her Majesty the Queen, contained the very best nurses in the profession. Previous, to the appointment of the Advisory Board, the number of candidates was not equal to the vacancies, but since the number of candidates had increased, and. at the last examination there were 32 candidates for 30 vacancies, and he understood that some of the candidates held positions as house-surgeons in the best hospitals in London. The Advisory Board had made a review of the whole of the military hospitals of the United Kingdom, in which review one of the 1363 civil members had always taken part; and he hoped they were on the eve of many great changes, in the way of not treating so many trifling cases in hospital, n having much better equipment, more scientific structures, and a general modernising of the institutions. He had asked the House for a sum of £150,000, which he proposed to entrust to a small Committee of which Sir C. Perry, now a most active and responsible official at Guy's, would be the chairman. That Committee would apportion the money among the various hospitals with a view to securing their modernisation. An other point was the organisation of an adequate civilian reserve and the definition of their status as compared with the Army Medical Corps. He hoped that before the House met again he might be in a position to tell his hon. friend and the House that these were all accomplished facts.
His hon. friend the Member for Westminster had alluded to one or two other subjects. The points he had brought out during the war in South Africa were subjects which required to be brought out, and the fact that the hon. Member had been on the spot amply justified him in bringing them out, and by taking that course he rendered a great service to the country. Nevertheless he maintained that during the war the Army Medical Corps amidst great difficulties did their duty with the most absolute self-denial and success under a system in which organisation was wanted more than initiative, and which organisation had never up to that time been asked for by the House of Commons. All he could say now was that they recognised those difficulties, and personally he was grateful to his hon. friend the Member for Westminster for the share he had taken in suggesting remedies.
§ * MR. WEIR. (Ross and Cromarty)
called attention to the inadequate equipment of Fort George with surgical instruments. He thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to see that more up-to-date instruments were supplied to the hospital at Fort George. He hoped the Secretary of State for War would look into this matter. Some years ago he went down to Aldershot, and he was 1364 surprised to find that the surgical instruments in use there were of the most ancient order. They had been slightly improved since, but very little.
said he felt that the point which he desired to bring before the Committee was one which ought not to be allowed to pass without some kind of comment—he alluded to the practice of giving military titles to medical men. He was aware that this was a very delicate subject to touch upon, but it seemed to him that the present titles should not be given to the medical profession, and the different grades of Army surgeons might be met by such titles as assistant-surgeon, surgeon, field-surgeon, and others. Special privileges might be given in regard to service, the granting of emoluments, and other things. For certain reasons concessions had been made to medical clamour by granting certain titles, but be was convinced that as regarded the Army itself no good whatever had been done by allowing the medical profession to assume military titles.
§ MR. BUCHANAN
thought the hon. Member for Westminster must be astonished, although no doubt pleased, at the very changed tone in the reception of his criticisms. It was not owing to the War Office, but to the hon. Member and a few others, that attention was called to the gross insufficiency and the scandalous mismanagement of the medical arrangements at the beginning of the war. The loss of many lives, and the amount of sickness and torture and misery endured by our soldiers, officers as well as men, were due to the culpable mismanagement of the right hon. Gentleman now sitting on the Treasury Bench. ("Oh, oh.")
§ MR. BRODRICK
I must beg the hon. Member to moderate his language, and to observe, first of all, that I was not at the War Office at the time he refers to, and that I took the full responsibility, when the War Office was organised to send 70,000 men abroad, of sending 250,000 men. Perhaps the hon. Member will withdraw the observation he has made. From the point of view of the comity that exists among Members of 1365 this House he will withdraw a charge which he cannot substantiate. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Withdraw."]
§ MR. BUCHANAN
said, in so far as the right hon. Gentleman corrected him by the reminder that he was not then Secretary for War, he acknowledged that he was in error; but the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a Member did not make anything like adequate provision in the medical department for the exigencies of the war. That was only one part—the right hon. Gentleman might ride off on that plea if he liked—of the gross mismanagement and want of foresight shown in every matter connected with the inception of the war. In no Government Department had the want of foresight been so remarkable as in regard to the Army Medical Corps. It was well remembered how the hon. Member for Westminster was received by the Prime Minister and other responsible Ministers when he first reported what he had seen in South Africa. The improvement in the Medical Department now, and the future improvements contemplated, were the result of a very tardy repentance on the part of the Ministers of the Crown, and were due mainly to the perseverance, fortitude, industry, and courage of the hon. Member for Westminster, and those who acted with him.
§ MR. WHITLEY (Halifax)
called attention to an item of £5,000 for an expeditionary force in China. The China expeditionary force was sent out more than a year ago, and he could not understand how it came about that at this time of day the Committee should be asked to pay £5,000 for this purpose. He wished to know how it was that they were now called upon to pay this item.
said the reason was that certain accounts had not been rendered at the commencement of last Sear, but as they knew they would come in during tire present year they now asked for money to meet those charges.
§ MR. WHITLEY
said he understood that some expense was still going on in regard to this force, which could hardly be called an expeditionary force at the present time. He thought there should 1366 be a distinction drawn in the estimates between the money spent on the war in China and that spent for the maintenance and protection of the Legation.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ 2. £1,838,000, Transports and Re mounts.
§ * SIR CHARLES DILKE
called attention to the small establishment of horses. At the present moment, although the number of horses of cavalry regiments had been slightly increased there was still a very small number of horses of effective age. The number of horses per squadron kept up in connection with British cavalry regiments was smaller than that of any other army in the world. They did not average more than 110 horses per squadron. He believed that the number of men justified at least 135 horses per squadron, and he wished to press the Government if necessary, rather to reduce the number of cadres than keep up so small an establishment of horses.
§ MR. BRODRICK
said he had more than once had meetings with officers of cavalry regiments on this subject. It was not altogether merely a matter of horses. The officers stated that, having regard to the number of men, they could not with advantage take more horses than they had already got. Consequently, while he agreed with the right hon. Baronet, he was in the hands of the military authorities, who said they got all the horses they could manage, considering the work the men had to do. If the War Office gave them all they wasted they could do no more.
§ * SIR CHARLES DILKE
You ought to be able to do as well as any other cavalry in the world. There is no other cavalry with so small a proportion of horses.
§ MR. BRODRICK
There is something peculiar about the British Army in many ways In most cases it spends more than any army in the world. In this case it spends less.
§ MAJOR SEELY (Isle of Wight)
thought the right hon. Gentleman should take 1367 this criticism more seriously to heart. The right hon. Gentleman had informed the Committee that he had frequently made representations on this subject, and that, so far, he had not been able to get any further, because the officers of cavalry regiments had pointed out that they had so many men engaged in other duties that it would be impossible to keep more horses employed. But surely that was a most ridiculous state of things. When every other country could keep up a proper establishment of horses we might be expected to have the very best and most efficient. He would suggest that, if the commanders of cavalry regiments said it was impossible to have this under the present plan, a change should be made in the plan, which was admitted to be not entirely creditable. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to give this matter further attention.
§ MR. BRODRICK
said the present supply of horses was adequate to mount the men and take them into the field. He was in full agreement with his hon. friend, and he could assure him it was not a question of parsimony, but whether he should dictate to the War authorities to keep a larger number of horses than they wanted to keep.
§ MR. CALDWELL (Lanarkshire, Mid)
asked for imformation with respect to the hired transports for bringing home the troops from South Africa. The amount taken this year was £812,500. He wanted to know how many hired transports there were at present. He supposed that the work of bringing home the troops from South Africa was nearly finished. There had been very considerable waste in this respect, a great many transports having been kept practically idle. Had the Admiralty no hospital ships at all I He found in connection with the China expedition that a hospital ship was hired from the Peninsular and Oriental Company, and it remained out there for many months.
§ THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.)
said he could not give the hon. Member full details in regard to the number of ships that had been engaged in transport work. What 1368 happened was this. Requests were made by the War Office for ships, and the Transport Department of the Admiralty furnished the transports. In some cases they were kept for considerable periods of time, waiting for troops coming back. That was necessary during the war, but not now. Every care was taken to get the transports at market rates. The question of hospital ships for the Army was a totally different matter. The number of transport ships had been considerably diminished, and now they were limited to the number required to bring troops from South Africa from time to time.
§ MR. CALDWELL
said this was a vague and general answer which conveyed no information whatever. It was at this time more than any other that there was likely to be waste. There was an item of £719,900 for hired transports, and the Committee expected a little information regarding it. How many hired transports had they on hand?
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
said the actual number of hired transports was two. If more were required at a later stage they would be hired.
§ MR. CALDWELL
Exactly, but why could you not give us that information when it was asked? Now perhaps you can tell us whether the cost is £1 per ton per month.
§ MR. BRODRICK
said he kept the most careful watch on the use of these transports. They had an enormous number of moves going on as between South Africa, the Mediterranean, and this country early in the year. That caused a very heavy charge for transports. There were at the beginning of the year about thirty transports employed; hut, as the Secretary to the Admiralty had stated, the number was now reduced to, two.
§ MR. BUCHANAN
thought it high time that Parliament should be informed as to the rate at which transports were hired for service during the war. A categorical promise was given by Lord Goschen at the beginning of the war that the information should be furnished when the war was concluded.
§ MR. WHITLEY
said the right hon. Gentleman had not given a satisfactory answer to the question of sea transports. The item they were now asked to vote was three times the amount normally required. How was it that so long after the conclusion of the war there should be these swollen figures? What they were anxious for was that as soon as possible they might get back to the normal figures in this respect.
§ MR. BRODRICK
said he had already explained that an enormous number of moves had taken place this year. The War Office had hardly got credit for what they had done since the close of the war. They had discharged 160,000 men since the war ended. There was no one in the House more interested than himself in economic administration. When they further reduced the Estimates the figures referred to would be much lower.
§ MR. BUCHANAN
said the Committee should get some information as to the rates at which the transports were hired. It was in February, 1900, Lord Goschen, who was then First Lord of the Admiralty, stated that at the conclusion of the war full particulars would be furnished in regard to the chartering of ships.
§ MR. BRODRICK
said the Admiralty had not the slightest objection to give these particulars in a Parliamentary Return.
§ MR. LOUGH
asked what the charge of £70,000 for the China expedition was based on. Did it apply entirely to last year? If so it did not seem to him to be a satisfactory way of keeping the accounts. He thought there was plenty of time, when the Estimates were being prepared, to get some particulars from India as to the exact amount. When he turned to the Somaliland charges he found the amount was £170,000. That seemed to him the cost of a little war itself. Was that the total item for Somaliland, a ad might the Committee assume that no more money would be wanted? What were the chief heads of the expenses here?
§ MR. BRODRICK
The sea transport charges, to which the hon. Gentleman 1370 called attention, were payments made when the transports were discharged. The proceeds of the sale of animals were, of course, larger at the end of a war than in a normal year. In regard to the two expeditions in China and Somaliland, transport and remounts involved the largest portion of this charge. He would welcome the day when it was possible to bring the Indian troops from China and place them on the charge of India; but the hon. Member would understand that, seeing the trouble had so recently subsided in the portions of China where those troops were, the Government must not be asked to come to too precipitate a decision on the subject. They had, however, reduced the troops to one quarter of the former number.
§ MR. BRODRICK
said he thought there were about 3,200 men. Then, as regarded the Somaliland Vote, the same answer applied as to the China Vote.
§ MR. CALDWELL
said he did not see why they should have 3,000 men in China. There were at one time 700 or 800 men at Shanghai, and they all knew that the French, German, and British troops had gone away from that place. Then, in Peking, there was only the normal guarding for guarding the Embassy, which could not amount to more than 500 at the outside. It must be useful to the Government to know that the Germans had three or four times the number of officers at Peking and Tient-sin the British had, so that they would be able to fill up details at once on an emergency.
§ MR. BRODRICK
said that if the hon. Member were to go there again he would find some British forces in Shanghai and some in Hong-Kong.
§ * MR. WEIR
said that the new barracks at Hong-Kong would not be finished for two or three years yet. The right hon. Gentleman was not purposely misleading the Committee, but it would be well if he 1371 were to mark, learn, and inwardly digest what had been said, and see that the officials at the War Office furnished him with accurate information. As the representative of Ross and Cromarty, he did not come there to vote hundreds of thousands of pounds, aye millions, without any information.
§ MR. CALDWELL
said if the Secretary for War included the troops in Hong-Kong he might make up 3,000; but he would inform the right hon. Gentleman that Hong-Kong was not part of the expedition to China. It was a British settlement and was under the Colonial Office. Ho hoped the Secretary fur War would look up the matter, and discriminate between the expenditure which belonged to the British colony of Hong-Kong, and that which related to the China expedition. The Vote was far too large for the British force which was in China.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,822,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for Clothing Establishments and Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1904."
§ * SIR CHARLES DILKE
said he did not propose to raise the question of wages at the Pimlico Clothing Establishment, but there was one grievance there which he was quite certain ought to be looked into by the War Office. A circular had recently been issued by the Home Office in regard to sanitary accommodation in factories, and he was certain that the accommodation of that description at Pimlico was below the Home Office standard.
said that inquiry was being made into this matter, and if the sanitary accommodation at Pimlico was below the standard, steps would be taken to remedy it.
* MR. CKOOKS (Woolwich)
said that in the case of contractors who infringed the fair wages Resolution of the House, the Department was always willing to receive a deputation on the subject from the trade union. He saw no reason why the 1372 same course should not be followed in regard to the men, and the women, who were in an even more unfortunate position—namely, those employed in Government factories. The employees in the Pimlico factory should be allowed to make their grievances known direct to the War Office through the medium of the trade union organization. He knew the arrogance of the overseers and foremen towards the workmen. He had a letter from an employee in the Pimlico factory who had made an appeal to the overseer, and he was referred to "Bill Crooks to answer it." No official had the right to answer a workman's request in that manner.
§ MR. BRODRICK
said he quite saw what the hon. Member desired, but the rule of the Government had always been, and he hoped it always would be, to deal direct with its own employees. The Government, he hoped, was a good employer, and they had every desire to give good employment, and deal fairly with their workpeople. But the Government had never given any recognition to the idea that outside intermediaries should come in between them and those whom they employed. Such a course, he thought, would not tend either to smooth working, or to a good understanding between employer and employed in Government service. He could assure the hon. Menber that if the men or women were dissatisfied they were perfectly free to ventilate their grievances, and to approach the authorities on the matter, and he would take care that they would not be penalised for doing so.
§ * MR. CROOKS
said that that was a very unsatisfactory statement by the right hon. Gentleman, and he begged to move that the Vote be reduced by £100. The right hon. Gentleman said that these poor people in the factories need have no fear in making complaints; but he could give twenty cases in which the over lookers or foremen said to the workmen, "You can complain if you like, but if you do, bear in mind that we shall remember you." Was not that coercion? He had always found that the people who had been paid at the lowest rate of wages lacked moral courage. That had been taken out of them long ago; and they should be allowed to make their representations through their unions.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That a sum not exceeding £1,821,900 be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Crooks.)
SIR FORTESCUE FLANNER (Yorkshire, Shipley)
said he wished to put it to the Secretary for War that, in his reply to the hon. Member for Woolwich, he did not at all deal with the logical point which the hon. Member had raised. That point was, why did the officers of State and the members of the Government receive deputations from outside combinations of workmen in respect of alleged contraventions of the regulations by contractors who employed the workmen, but refused to receive similar deputations from those who had adopted the grievances of workmen in the direct employment of the Government. He awaited with considerable interest and with an entirely open mind the explanation of his right hon. friend.
§ MR. BRODRICK
said the distinction between the two cases which the hon. Member for Woolwich had raised was this Those employed in the service had a right to approach the heads of the Department direct; whereas, the workers under contractors, who might be doing other business outside Government business, had no right of access to the Government. In the latter case, if a representation was made to the Government, they called on the contractors for an explanation as to whether the rules which this House had set up had been observed. In the former case, they looked after their own workmen.
§ MR. KEARLEY (Devonport)
said he would let a little daylight into this matter. The right hon. Gentleman, said the Government would not allow any outside interference between it and its employees But what was the channel of communication between the Government employees and the Government? It was by petition, and these petitions were sent in year by year, and the men were led to suppose that they would receive a prompt reply. The Committee would probably be surprised to know that that was not acted upon in any sense. He knew of a petition which had been sent in, in 1902, to which no reply had yet been given, and when he addressed a question last week to the 1374 Secretary to the Admiralty on the subject, the only satisfaction he got was that the matter was still being considered. The only opportunity the workpeople in Pimlico had of ventilating their grievances was by sending in petitions, and the right hon. Gentleman ought to make inquiries into the matter He was glad to see the Secretary to the Admiralty present.
§ MR. KEARLEY
said that the only way these workpeople had to ventilate their grievances was by petition.
§ MR. KEARLEY
said yes, absolutely. No reply had been given to the petition, and he should be glad to know if the right hon. Gentleman intended to remedy that state of affairs. He thought the Committee ought to have a definite pledge that replies would be given to, such petitions.
§ * MR. SHACKLETON (Lancashire, Clitheroe)
said he wished the right hon. Gentleman would consider that this was a matter which had been recognised by employers of labour throughout the country. This House recognised over thirty years ago the right of workpeople to organise in the only way possible, namely, by appointing men in whom they had confidence to lay their case before the employers. In this case the employer was the War Office; and surely the right hon. Gentleman would not deny that these workpeople had a perfect right to appoint the man whom they considered best able to present their case to the officers appointed by the right hon. Gentleman to investigate it. The attitude of the right hon. Gentleman was most inconsistent. He stated that the applications for work were more numerous than the employment necessitated. That was the whole secret of the situation, and that was why the right hon. Gentleman ignored the trades union representative. The action of the 1375 Government was altogether wrong, and ought not to be tolerated. Trades unionists throughout the country would not read with pleasure the refusal of the right hon. Gentleman to receive a trades union representative. He hoped his hon. friend would take a division.
§ MR. REGINALD LUCAS
said he felt bound to associate himself with the views of Vie hon. Gentle man the Member for Devonport, because his experience was much the same as that of the hon. Gentleman. He, however, was persuaded that the Government did not desire to deal unfairly with their employees; and in that respect he differed from the hon. Gentleman. He thought, however, that the Government did not appreciate the difficulty of employees in putting their case forward. The Government should remember that it was not easy for the men to be their own advocates. They were very often, if he might say so, inarticulate, and found it very difficult to state their own case, although he entirely exonerated the Government from trying to take an unfair advantage of their employees.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
said he desired to state that the hon. Member for Devonport was under an entire misapprehension. There was no disinclination on the part of Government employees to place their views before a particular Department. It was stated that there had been some delay, but that, he believed, was also a misapprehension. Perhaps hon. Members were not aware of the volume of petitions received by Government Departments. Their consideration involved immense detail, and it could not be expected that an immediate answer could be given to them.
I called the hon. Member for Devonport to order for discussing the question of Admiralty employees; now the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty is answering the hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport, but it is quite out of order on this Vote.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
said he understood that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth had alluded to the matter.
No, the hon. Member did not refer to Admiralty employees, but to Government employees generally.
§ SIR JOHN GORST (Cambridge University)
was surprised to hear that it was the settled policy of the Department not to allow employees to make representations through third parties. He thought such a policy objectionable on two grounds. In the first place, it was nut just, and in the second place, it was inexpedient. The Government employed a great number of extremely poor workers, particularly in the clothing factory, many of whom were women, and they could not make the best of their case when brought face to face with military people and officials in high places. There was no better way of preventing the springing up of disputes than the bringing in of third persons, who could take a calm and impartial view of the situation. It was foolish of the Government not to allow their workpeople to make representations to them through their own trade union officials.
§ * MR. HERBERT SAMUEL (Yorkshire, Cleveland)
said that a grave matter of principle was involved, and the problems which were presented by the relations between the State and its employees would not be rendered less difficult or delicate by refusing to recognise trade unionism. A few years ago the House of Commons passed a Resolution which asserted the principle that the Government should be a model employer of labour. Certainly no employer of labour could be regarded as a model employer who refused to treat with trade union representatives. The principle of collective bargaining was at the root of the settlement of all industrial difficulties. In many industries, certainly in the great industries in the North of England, employers preferred that the men should be trade unionists. The right hon. Gentleman now set up a principle which had been rejected by every 1377 progressive employer of labour throughout the country. The right hon. Gentleman said that he refused to negotiate with workmen through the medium of third parties. In the next breath he said that he was ready to receive representations on behalf of the workmen from Members of Parliament. How could the right hon. Gentleman distinguish between the two cases? No doubt it was necessary to have military discipline in the case of those who were to serve in the field. But these ideas of discipline that reigned at the War Office ought not to be applied to its Civil establishments. The doctrine which the right hon. Gentleman had enunciated would be an encouragement to every reactionary employer of labour throughout the country.
§ COLONEL SANDYS
said he could not agree with the argument which had been advanced by the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken; and he confessed he was very much surprised at the views put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University. He was glad his right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War had taken up the position he did on that occasion. It was quite refreshing in these days to hear of a Minister having sufficient courage to say that he would not allow any outside interference with his Department. In no Department of the Government should any outside interference of any sort or kind be allowed. The curse of the country at the present time was trade union agitation; and he hoped that his right hon. friend would adhere to the position he had taken up.
§ MR. EMMOTT (Oldham)
said that the hon. Member who had just spoken had not perhaps had much experience of trade disputes. If he had had such experience, he would not have made the speech he had just delivered. He entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Portsmouth that the Government were not trying to get the better of their employees. He could not conceive any Government being so stupid as to attempt that. With reference to collective bargaining, he confessed from his own experience that he would rather deal 1378 with a trained negotiator than with a man appointed, so to speak, ad hoc to represent the case of his fellow workmen. It was not that there might be any inability to state the case, but the trained negotiator knew when to give way, and realised when the argument against him was sensible. The untrained negotiator did not know when to give way, or when sense and reason were with the other side and he went into the negotiation prepared to say practically what was put into his mouth. He was convinced that the Government, if proper safeguards were adopted, would achieve more satisfactory results if they negotiated with the man appointed by the workpeople than by adopting the unfortunate method which led to such a long continued war in connection with the Penrhyn quarries.
§ MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs)
said he thought the thanks of the Committee were due to the hon. Member for Woolwich for raising what was after all one of the most important questions connected with Government Departments. So far as he understood it, it resolved itself into a question of trades unionism or no trades unionism. He regretted very much the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite. The hon. and gallant Gentleman advised the Government to stand against the interference of anyone connected with trades unions. He would be very much surprised if the hon. and gallant Gentleman delivered such a speech to his constituents. The question they had to consider was that the work-people believed, rightly or wrongly, they could not place their grievances before the heads of the Department. The facts in the present case were that the petition was presented last September, and that, up to the present, no reply had been received. His point was that the present system was not successful. If the right hon. Gentleman would adopt the suggestion that the men themselves should appoint a spokesman that might meet the difficulty. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman was unsympathetic but he was a busy man; and it was impossible for him to examine into the details of various branches of his Department. If the Resolution of the 1379 House was to be effective no bar should be placed in the way of complaints as to its failure being investigated. He would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman might meet the complaint by ordering a special inquiry into the difficulty of presenting grievances.
§ MR. BRODRICK
said there never was the slightest difficulty about the employees of the War Office seeing the heads of the Department.
§ MR. DALZIEL
said the right hon. Gentleman had made a statement that the Pimlico Clothing Factory workpeople could appoint from among themselves a deputation which he was willing to receive. Was that the case?
§ MR. BRODRICK
I said there had never been the slightest difficulty in the employees of the War Office approaching the heads of the Department.
§ MR. DALZIEL
said that in reply to a communication the right hon. Gentleman had indicated his willingness to consider any complaints of the employees which might be forwarded through the proper channels, but he declined to recognise their union as the intermediary. His claim was that the union ought to be recognised.
§ MR. DALZIEL
said he was content to rest his case on the words "I must decline to recognise the union or receive any deputation which may purport to convey the views of the members." Surely the employees were the best judges as to how and by whom they wished their grievances to be represented. The issue now really was—"trades unions, or no trades unions."
§ SIR J. FERGUSSON
hoped the Committee would support the right hon. Gentleman in the position which he had taken up, and which was in accordance with the universal practice of the Government. The only logical course open to the right hon. Gentleman was to decline to allow outsiders to come in and inter- 1380 fere with the organisation of a Government Department, and hon. Members would surely support him in that.
§ * SIR CHARLES DILKE
said the attitude of the War Office and that of the Post Office was totally indefensible, and it was impossible to maintain it. Scarcely a year in the last twenty-seven had passed in which he had not discussed grievances with the employees in the Army Clothing Department. They had real grievances, and there was serious difficulty in putting them before the Secretary of State. The majority of the employees were poor women, not of a class who were able to state their grievances. If any skilled lady inspector of factories could see the employees she would be able to bring the case before the right hon. Gentleman in a way it had not been brought up to the present time.
§ MR. REGINALD LUCAS
said the principle of allowing the employees themselves to put their grievances forward was a right one, and he thought the Government ought to be supported in the position they had taken up.
§ MR. BROADHURST (Leicester)
said the idea of being willing to see individuals but not persons representing them, was the old ground taken up by the most determined opponents of labour combination and organisation. It was not the policy adopted in all Government Departments. For instance the Commissioner of Works was in constant communication with a powerful trades-union of which he was a member.
§ MR. BROADHURST
said the communications had reference to the conditions of work, hours, etc., and that indirectly at any rate affected labour. The War Office was the last Department in the world that should take unto itself any air of superiority in any way whatsoever. He had himself had a long experience in connection with the Army Clothing Department. He had been associated with the grievances of the 1381 employees for more than thirty years, mostly in the days when he was Parliamentary Secretary to the Trades Union Congress and when Mr. Childers was Secretary of State for War. He once arranged a deputation with that right hon. Gentleman in the old Conference room, and after listening to the women for about ten minutes, Mr. Childers begged leave to withdraw, and begged him to make any terms possible with the workers in that particular Department. The attitude now taken up by the Secretary for War was one which must prevent the administrative work of a Department being successfully carried on, and he hoped the Government as a whole did not accept the right hon. Gentleman's views.
§ MR. BRODRICK
said that if the members employed in the Army Clothing Department had reason to complain and made their complaints through the proper channels—through their own superior officer—he was ready to see them. But he was not ready to recognise unions of the workers.
§ MR. BRODRICK
The Government never has dealt with any of its employees—postmen, policemen, soldiers or sailors through a union.
§ * MR. HERBERT SAMUEL
said the right hon. Gentleman by quoting the cases of soldiers, sailors, and policemen was simply confusing the issue, because they stood in an entirely different position from ordinary working people. The right hon. Gentleman had frequently stated that he would not receive a deputation from an outside organisation, but he had not yet given any reasons for adopting this attitude.
§ COLONEL LOCKWOOD (Essex, Epping),
while thoroughly agreeing with the Secretary of State for War in regard 1382 to this question, suggested that he should avail himself of the services of one of the women factory inspectors who should inquire into the conditions of employment of women in the Pimlico factory.
§ MR. KEARLEY
pointed out that in the case which had been quoted in which the Chief Ordnance Officer refused to receive a deputation from the union, it was simply a union of Government employees. The right hon. Gentleman had said he would be very glad to see individuals or bodies representing those individuals, and in this case why not receive the representatives of the individuals' union. Did the right hon. Gentleman make any differentiation? Did he merely refuse to receive outside unions or did he also ref use to receive representatives of unions of any kind whatsoever?
§ MR. DALZIEL
hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to make some small concession and thus avoid a division. Why not adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, backed up by the recommendation of the hon. and gallant Member for the Epping Division, and appoint an independent lady inspector to hear the grievances of these women and ascertain the cause of the dissatisfaction which existed as to the presentation of grievances. Let the enquiry even be confidential, if desired. If the right hon. Gentleman refused to adopt that suggestion the case was hopeless.
§ MR. PRIESTLEY (Grantham)
said they heard a great deal now-a-days about the necessity of introducing business-like, methods into their administration. They were all agreed that the trades union movement in this country had been most serviceable to the men, and a useful means of getting rid of friction between employers and employed. Why should not the War Office, in its own interest, try 1383 to utilise this method of dealing with the grievances of its employees. If it had some antiquated notion about improper interference, it was most stupid. The course which had been followed was stupid, and it was time to have done with stupidity. Why did not the War Office utilise to the best of their ability the lessons which the common sense of the country had taught in the matter of trade disputes? The classes who had no power to speak for themselves were the least represented, and Government offices and Departments ought to have some consideration for those who could not help themselves. He hoped some guarantee would be given that in this little matter the affairs of the War Office would be conducted on the lines of common sense and business.
§ MR. PIERPOINT (Warrington)
thought there was a great difference between receiving a trade union deputation from outside the Pimlico factory and receiving a deputation from inside, because in the latter case although it might be a trade union deputation yet it would be a deputation of the men themselves, who, as far as he knew, were perfectly at liberty to form a union inside the factory, and had a reasonable right to he received. He would be inclined to agree with his right hon. friend in refusing to receive a deputation from inside the factory were it not for the fact that there was frequently the most inordinate delay in getting replies from the War Office. The right hon. Gentleman had not explained why no reply had been given to the representation made last October.
§ * MR. CREMER (Shoreditch, Haggerston)
joined in the appeal to the 1384 Secretary of State to reconsider his decision. It was practically impossible for these poor women to address the right hon. Gentleman; they would tremble in his presence, and be practically dumb. It was only natural that they should desire to have some one used to putting their grievances before the proper authorities. The principle was allowed in the Law Courts; everybody was there allowed to employ an advocate, and all these people asked was that they should be allowed to appoint anyone they pleased as their advocate. It was a right for which trades unions had always contended and which he had hoped had been settled long ago, but it appeared that the battle would have to be fought over again. Scores of cases could be cited in which terrible disasters had resulted from the narrow-minded plea now advanced by the right hon. Gentleman, and many instances had come under his own notice in which, the good sense of the employers having recognised the right of the trades unions to plead the cause of their members, serious struggles had been averted. It was always to the interest of the representatives of trades unions to avoid strikes in order to guard the funds of the unions. Leaders did not make strikes, but strikes made leaders. He sincerely hoped the right hon. Gentleman would concede the point for which they were contending.
§ MR. LYTTELTON (Warwick and Leamington)
thought a middle course might he found which would he acceptable to the Government. He understood the Government objection was to suffer the interference of a large trade union outside their employment, and that he could understand, because a trade union might have 1385 some object of their own to gain. But there could not be any reason at all against allowing a deputation from within the employment. He should think the employees would be able to appoint a deputation of their own who could sufficiently represent their grievances. He understood that that was conceded. If, then, any body of employees were not able to represent their case clearly and adequately, there ought not to he any rigid rule which would prevent the right hon. Gentleman and the employees agreeing upon some person to speak on the latter's behalf.
§ MR. CROOKS
said the hon. and learned Member had stated the ease admirably, but it was just that which the right hon. Gentleman had refused to grant. The words of the right hon. Gentleman were—I am prepared to consider any complaints of the employees which may be forwarded through the proper channel, or to listen to any individual who asks to see me through his immediate superior, but I must decline to recognise the trade union as an intermediary, or to receive a deputation which may purport to convey the views of its members.
§ MR. CROOKS
said it was the Union of Government Workers—people actually in the employment of the Government. If the right hon. Gentleman would consent to receive a deputation of the union, what had now taken him ten months to consider, without arriving at any decision, could be settled in ten minutes.
§ MR. BRODRICK
said the hon. Member for Woolwich and the hon. and 1386 learned Member for Warwick were at variance on the very point upon which he was at variance with the proposal which had been made. If any individual, or any deputation, or any body of workmen wished to make representations to him they were perfectly at liberty to do so at any time. He could imagine a case in which a body of workpeople would be unable to speak for themselves and required a spokesman, and he drought there would be no difficulty in arranging for such a case. But what hon. Members opposite desired was that he should recognise what was practically the intervention of an outside union representing other unions—("No").
§ MR. SHACKLETON
thought the right hon. Gentleman had not stated the case fairly. What they wanted was that these women or any other body of Government employees should have the right to appoint one of the officials connected with their union—which was entirely composed of Government workers—to represent their case. The official of the union might possibly not be working for the Government; he might have retired from the service; but by constant contact with the work-people he would be better acquainted with the facts as a whole than any individual workman could be. The society with which he was connected consisted of 100,000 workpeople, of whom 60 per cent. were women, and during the last ten years the employers of Lancashire had never refused him a hearing on behalf of the women. He failed to see why the Government should not recognise the same principle.
§ MR. DUKE (Plymouth)
understood his right hon. friend to agree as to the 1387 desirability of any body of workmen being allowed to select a representative of their own in the service of the Department to approach the head of the Department. The Secretary of State had also stated that if through defective education, sex, or other cause, they were unable to state their case properly,
§ he had no objection to assistance being given. That being so, he failed to see what more was required.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 47; Noes 118. (Division List No. 207.)1389
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.||Rose, Charles Day|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Helme, Norval Watson||Russell, T. W.|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)|
|Burt, Thomas||Kearley, Hudson E.||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)|
|Caldwell, James||Levy, Maurice||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Cawley, Frederick||Lough, Thomas||Spencer, Rt. Hn C. R. (Northants|
|Cremer, William Randal||Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)||Sullivan, Donal|
|Dalziel, James Henry||M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)||Ure, Alexander|
|Delany, William||M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin||Weir, James Galloway|
|Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)||Moss, Samuel||White, Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.||Murphy, John||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||O'Brien, P. J (Tipperary, N.)||Wilson, Henry (York, W. R.)|
|Doogan, P. C.||O'Mara, James|
|Emmott, Alfred||Partington, Oswald||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Fuller, J. M. F.||Priestley, Arthur||Mr. Crooks and Mr.|
|Griffith, Ellis J.||Redmond, William (Clare)||Shackleton.|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Fisher, William Hayes||Milvain, Thomas|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algeron||Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Forster, Henry William||Morrell, George Herbert|
|Atkinson, Right Hon. John||Fyler, John Arthur||Morrison, James Archibald|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline. FitzRoy||Gordon, Hn.J. E. (Elgin & Nrn.||Murray, Rt. Hn A. Graham (Bute|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds||Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Gore Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)||Myers, William Henry|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith||Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld.G (Midx||Percy,Earl|
|Butcher, John George||Harris, Frederick Leverton||Pierpoint, Robert|
|Campbell, J. H. M (Dublin Univ.||Heath, Arthur H. Hanley)||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward|
|Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)||Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.||Purvis, Robert|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Hogg, Lindsay||Randles, John S.|
|Chamberlain, Rt.Hon. J. (Birm.||Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George||Rasch, Major Frederic Carne|
|Chamberlain Rt Hn J A (Worc.||Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.||Reid, James (Greenock)|
|Charrington, Spencer||Keswick, William||Remnant, Jas. Farquharson|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow||Renwick, George|
|Colomb, Sir. John Charles Ready||Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks., N. R.||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Lee Arthur H (Hants. Fareham)||Round, Rt. Hon. James|
|Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim S.||Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford|
|Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile||Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.||Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles|
|Davenport, William Bromley||Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Dickson, Charles Scott||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine||Seely, Maj J.E.B. (Isle of Wight|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew|
|Duke, Henry Edward||Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)||Sinclair, Louis (Romford)|
|Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas||Lvttelton, Hon. Alfred||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)|
|Faber, E. B. (Hants, W.)||Macdona, John Cumming||Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)|
|Faber, George Denison (York)||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Smith, Hn. W. F. D.(Strand)|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.||M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)||Spear, John Ward|
|Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir. J. (Manc'r||Majendie, James A. H.||Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)|
|Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Maxwell, W.J.H.(Dumhfriessh.||Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)|
|Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier||Walker, Col. William Hall||Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.|
|Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)||Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.|
|Thornton, Percy M.||Warde, Colonel C. E.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Tollemache, Henry James||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart||Sir Alexander Acland-|
|Tomlinson, Sir Wm. E. M.||Wylie, Alexander||Hood and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Valentia, Viscount||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
Original Question put, and agreed to.