§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £2,839,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Supply and Repair of Warlike and other Stores, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905."
§ * SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean)asked the Secretary of State for War whether he could make any statement with regard to the armament and the increase of the Militia Field Artillery.
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,) Belfast, W.said they had not taken into consideration the extension of the Militia field batteries, and no provision was made for it in the scheme of re-armament. He would prefer not to discuss, on the present occasion, the question of the armament of the Militia Artillery and the Militia Field Artillery. No provision had been made beyond the provision of reserve guns for the three batteries of Field Artillery which at present existed in the Militia.
§ MR. COURTENAY WARNER (Staffordshire, Lichfield)moved to reduce the Vote of £2,839,000 for the repair and supply of warlike and other stores by £100,000 in 213 order to protest against continued expenditure upon obsolete suns for the Artillery. The question of quick-firing guns had, he said, been raised over and over again during the last ten years, and for the last four years the answer had been that the guns were quick-firing; but, when cross-examined, it was explained by War Office representatives that they meant the spade equipment, which was not quick-firing, though an improvement on the old pattern. It still remained that our artillery guns did not fire one shot to four shots by the guns of other artillery and were really obsolete and of no use. A considerable Note was going to be spent on guns and gun-carriages, and they were being told that guns and gun-carriages of the new pattern were not to be introduced in the English Artillery this year. Those to be made were to be sent to India and India was to pay the cost; but the Artillery at home was apparently going to have guns made of the old pattern. Some of them had been made quite recently, and some, he believed, were at present being made. He protested that it was perfectly useless to waste the taxpayers' money on making guns which were acknowledged even by the War Office itself to be of an obsolete pattern, and he declared that it ought not to be allowed by the House. There should, he urged, be no further shilly-shallying about the matter. He drew attention to the fact that the Garrison Militia Artillery were being taught on guns still more obsolete, and they would therefore be unable to use the guns they would have to us? if we were at war and they were put on coast defence. It was really most important, that our troops should be given modern instruments to be taught on; and this system of producing obsolete guns should be done away with.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That item B (Guns and Carriages) be reduced by £100,000."—(Mr. Courtenay Warner.)
§ SIR CARNE RASCH (Essex, Chelmsford)did not think the last speaker was altogether correct in what he had said about quick-firing guns. He 214 held that the Government did not deserve the strictures passed on them by the hon. Member and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean, from time to time, in connection with this question. What were the facts? France and this country were the only countries in the world which had quick-firing guns. The German Government endeavoured to re-arm their artillery in 1899,and they spent £3,000,000 in doing so. But recently they found that the guns were obsolete and had to be altered, and they would Probably have to spend another £1,500,000 or £2,000,000 on re-armament. Nobody knew exactly what the Russsians had got, but it was supposed that they had a certain number of quick-firing guns. The Italian Government had partially rearmed their artillery, and had spent about £1,000,000 three-and-a-half years ago in doing so, with the pattern of the German quick-filing gun. But the Italians, too had found that the pattern was practically obsolete by this time, and they had the whole of their work to do again. In this country we had the Erchardt gun, which was bought by the present Secretary of State for India when he was at the War Office. The gun was highly unsatisfactory with reference to its carriage, but it really was a quick-firing gun and was used as such with desirable results. There was no doubt the French had a quick-firing gun, but they took uncommonly good care that nobody should find out what the secret was, though he believed it was connected with spiral and compressed air. They had some of these guns with their forces in China, but they allowed nobody to see them, and sent them home again as soon as they could, so that the invention should not be pirated. He could not help thinking the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lichfield was wrong in his aspersions on the War Office in regard to this matter, and that the Government, if they had taken the advice that some of them gave them when the late Mr. Powell Williams was at the War Office, would have constructed their guns in a hurry and would have had the work to do over again.
§ MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE (Bristol, E.)said that although this Vote was 215 reduced by half a million of money as compared with last year, the reduction was more apparent than real, inasmuch as the Secretary of State had announced that in the course of the next two years three or three and a half millions sterling were to be spent on the manufacture of guns. It had also to be remembered that in the course of the last three years there had been an expenditure of five millions sterling on artillery. Such expenditure could not go on without a reasoned explanation on the part of the War Office, not only of the amount they were going to spend, but also of the objects on which the expenditure was to be made. As to quick-firers, the Swiss had a far better gun than the English or the Germans, and probably than the French, for their gun would fire seven aimed shots per minute as against the one aimed shot of our gun. The question to which he desired particularly to direct attention was that of calibre, the great importance of which the Secretary of State did not appear able to realise. In March of last year, in reply to a Question, it was stated that there were six different calibres for movable guns and three for heavy ordnance. Valuable evidence had been given as to the waste caused by this variety of calibres, for in Question 18510 before the Royal Commission, General Marshall, of the Royal Artillery, stated—
I wish to call attention to the number of different natures of guns employed—a matter of serious importance. The difficulty of distributing so many sorts of ammunition amongst the various units operating in a vast country was enormous. It is a matter of Imperial importance to insist on the same patterns for home, India, and the Colonies. The following should meet all field requirements—field artillery guns, horse artillery guns, field howitzers, and a heavy battery such as 4.7 or 5-inch guns.That would have made four different sorts of guns instead of fifteen, as was the case in Africa, and it was obviously much easier and cheaper to carry one or two than fifteen sorts of ammunition for as many different kinds of guns. The Secretary of State had never said a word as to the character of the guns that were to be manufactured, first of all, for India as an experiment, and then, if they were a success, presumably to be foisted on this country. If there was to be a repetition of the manu- 216 facture of a great number of calibres, he would certainly vote for the reduction now proposed and any other that might be moved on the subject. Another point was that it ought to be possible to manufacture one kind of wheel for transport wagons, mule wagons, and field and horse artillery. By such an arrangement the cost would be greatly reduced, and the convenience of wheel and horse transport considerably increased.
§ * SIR JOHN COLOMB (Great Yarmouth)said the question of guns was very complex and required much knowledge of a detailed character, but there were one or two general points on which he desired information. The allocation of £373,000 to armaments and £130,000 to field artillery indicated a general policy, as to the correctness of which he was not at all satisfied. In the main, our military armament must be field artillery, as the Army was for field service abroad, but consideration of those forces which were precluded from serving abroad at once raised the question of the nature of the guns with which these should have been armed. The circumstances under which their guns would be brought into operation had to be considered. and that affected the calibre of the guns. The purpose of the Militia and Volunteer Forces was to resist foreign invasion, which must come from an attack delivered by troops landing from ships. The debarkation of an army on a smooth water surface was impossible under modern conditions of fire if resisted by even light artillery and a moderate force in position. Therefore to arm the Auxiliary Forces with a gun not applicable to the purpose of destroying transports was a mistake. The relative amounts to be spent on heavy and field artillery raised the question of the purpose for which the heavy artillery was required. It could only be to arm the forces whose object presumably was to ward off an attack by ships, so he thought the War Office were overdoing it. As the armament at our naval ports was to be used against ships, and as the guns of ships were to be used against ships, there was a possibility of standardisation in regard to the armament of naval ports and the guns of ships. In this way they could create a reserve of 217 guns and could practically have mounted on their works guns available for any naval necessities which might arise. He invited the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the broad question. He would also like some more information with regard to the howitzer and as to what had actually been done to develop greater accuracy in high angle firing. He did not ask for detailed information, but he wished to know how far the attention of the War Office had been paid to the development of high angle fire of certain classes of ordnance to be used on certain occasions. There were circumstances under which high angle firing was extremely necessary and desirable, and he should like the right hon. Gentleman to give them some information as to any experiments made in this direction.
§ MR. MARKHAM (Nottinghamshire, Mansfield)criticised the Secretary of State for War for his attitude towards the question of standardisation of guns. Before he was in office, he was continually calling the Government to account because the calibres of guns in India were not the same. The fact of there being no standardisation of guns must cause an immense amount of trouble, and if the Secretary of State for War would give to standardisation the same attention he gave to the subject before he was in office, he would meet the criticism of many Members on the Opposition side of the House.
§ MR. LYELL (Dorsetshire, E.)alluded to the armaments of the Garrison Artillery and asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not take the Committee into his confidence with regard to the policy he was pursuing in this matter, because, after all, the policy of substituting obsolete guns for slightly less obsolete guns was not economical.
§ * MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERreferred to the observations of the hon. Member for East Bristol who, he thought, always talked in a de haut en bas fashion of the War Office. That hon. Member thought it had never occurred to them to make any inquiries of foreign countries. He was mistaken; they had made inquiries of foreign countries. The proof of the fact was furnished by the demand 218 that was now being made upon the House. But they had held their hand with regard to the construction of a quick-firing gun until they were satisfied that the progress of foreign nations was such as to make the new departure advisable. The information they possessed would allow them to manufacture a gun which would at any rate be equal, and he thought more than equal, to the gun which was now being manufactured or which was actually in use on the Continent. The hon. Member talked about foisting off guns upon India. He assured him that there was no question of an experiment in regard to the guns sent to India. All the experiments had been undertaken and had been brought to a satisfactory conclusion before a single gun was issued, either to India or to the Army elsewhere. They were, for reasons which he gave on a previous occasion, supplying these gun, in the first instance to India, but there was no question at all of the guns being of an experimental character. The hon. Member had asked him for details, but he would need to be excused from going into very minute details before these guns were manufactured. The House of Commons was entitled to ask for anything, but he thought hon. Members would agree that there were some things that perhaps had better not be asked for. The assurance they would desire was that this gun, in the opinion of all those who had been concerned in its manufacture and—more important—in the opinion of those who had dealt with it from a practical point of view, had justified the descriptions he had given of it as being at least equal and, in the opinion of many good judges, superior to guns which were now being manufactured for Continental armies.
The hon. and gallant Member for Yarmouth took some exception to the apparent disproportion between the figures given for guns and carriages. He pointed out that they ought always to keep in mind the paramount necessity of mobile defence whether on land or on sea. But he did not think really that an examination of those figures would enable him to enforce the argument pursued in this case. The sum 219 of £373,000 was asked for t provide armaments, and £133,000 was for field artillery. The effective charge for field artillery was of course much more than £170,000, in view of the fact that they were manufacturing different patterns. Of course the additional sum was required for the British Army in India. The Mowatt Report, as hon. Members knew, dealt with the fortification of the coast fortresses. The result of the programme —the details of which he was very intimate with—was to reduce very largely the number of guns in our forts all over the world. The reduction had been made partly because some of the guns were obsolete, and because it was part of a considered programme upon which a small commencement had been made this year. The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth asked if the War Office were aware of the importance of improving and extending the possibilities of high angle firng. They were aware of the importance of that question, and they had that problem in mind. They were now making an experiment, which was of the greatest possible interest, with a gun larger than had ever been used before for that purpose.
The hon. Member for Mansfield and the hon. Member for Bristol had addressed to him Questions of great importance. He was rather astonished that the hon. Member for Bristol should suppose for a moment that he had abated his interest in a question in which he had always shown such a deep concern, or that he could fail in any endeavour he had made to put into execution his own very frequently expressed views in favour of standardisation, not only in guns, but in everything appertaining to warlike stores. He could give the hon. Member for Mansfield the best proof of his good intentions in this matter, by telling him that when he was in another Office he did take a considerable part in introducing the greatest step in the standardisation of artillery that had ever been taken in this country. It was true there would be a discrepancy in the calibres of the two new field guns, but when they remembered that there was a very great difference between the weight of the two projectiles, it would be seen that it was not without reason that they were varying the calibres of those guns. With re- 220 gard to the general range of guns, the hon. Member knew that in the past there had been a lamentable superfluity of calibres. This year they were using the 9.2 gun, which was also a naval gun, and not only so, but they had for a long time been using a 12-pounder quick-firing gun, which was a gun used in the Navy. A large number of obsolete calibres had been entirely eliminated. It was true that there was still a difference between the heavy gun, for the use of the Army in the field, and the 4.7 gun in the Navy; but the weight of the projectiles of these guns had not exactly the same relation to each other as the calibres. Steady progress was being made in the diminution of the calibres, and the Committee might rest assured that no effort would be spared to reduce the calibres so far as they could be usefully reduced, and to extend the system of standardisation.
The hon. Member for East Dorsetshire had drawn a pitiable picture of the state of a battery of Militia Artillery in which he was interested. He asked the hon. Member to give him particulars of that battery, for he could not reconcile the description of the obsolete 6-inch guns with his own knowledge of the artillery as it was at present. There were several types of breech action in the 6-inch guns, but that was inevitable in view of the demands of the service. The earlier type of the breech- loader had been relegated to the Militia, but he could not accept the description that they were obsolete guns. He could state from his own knowledge that there had been an immense improvement in the armament of all the Reserve Forces. The process of manufacturing guns was expensive and tedious, and it was not possible to pass on to the Auxiliary Forces the guns which were still required for the Regular Forces, but at no time had progress been so rapid, as in the past five years, in providing improved armaments. As soon as the new guns in the programme already announced were manufactured the 15-pounder guns in the hands of the Royal Artillery would be transferred to the Auxiliary Forces. Whatever might be the gravamen of the charge in the particular case referred to, they 221 were doing all they could to remove the objection.
§ * SIR CHARLES DILKEasked whether it was not the case that the Militia Garrison Artillery were now being trained every year at the places to which they would be sent for mobilisation, and that, therefore, they were using modern guns. Could that system not be extended so as to cover the cases dealt with just now.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid the right hon. Gentleman had touched on a most important point. For the most part the artillery were being trained at the places where they would undergo mobilisation. It happened that there were certain units of Militia which were not attached for mobilisation to any particular place.
§ * COLONEL WELBY (Taunton)slid the question raised by the hon. Member for Lichfield was one of very great importance. He thought the Secretary of State for War had given a very satisfactory answer. In regard to the new quick-firing gun, he thought it would be adverse to the interest of this country to have the whole of the details given in public. They must trust the War Office to keep the secrets of valuable new inventions. It was unquestionable that we could not have the Auxiliary Forces provided with the most modern weapons. It would involve an enormous cost, which he ventured to say the House would never authorise. At the same time he thought the Committee should be assured that both forces were armed with guns which would be likely to be of use in case of invasion. We rightly trusted very much to our Navy. A most terrible disaster had happened to one of the great battleships of the Russian Navy. It seemed to be an accident of a kind which might happen to a British ship as well as to a Russian ship. Such an accident might upset the whole of a scheme of defence of this country. We ought, therefore, to be prepared against invasion, and having the experience of the South African War behind us, an assurance should be given to the Committee that there would be in the case of invasion, not only a satisfactory mobilisation of the Auxiliary Forces, but that these forces would be armed 222 with satisfactory weapons. He thought if money were expended in providing the Reserve Forces in this country with weapons as good as those provided for the Reserve Forces in Continental countries, it would be well spent. The hon. Member for Lichfield had called attention to the important matter of standardisation, and what had been stated by the Secretary of State for War might be taken as an assurance that this was being carried out as far as possible.
§ MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid he wished a more explicit answer from the Secretary of State for War. Was it to be understood that the field artillery gun would be paid for this year out of this Vote? He understood that some of the guns included in this Vote were really not field artillery guns. The assurance he wished from the right hon. Gentleman was that no money would be spent on any field artillery gun which was not a quick-firing gun.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERThat is so.
§ MR. COURTENAY WARNERasked leave to withdraw the Motion.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ MR. J. F. HOPE (Sheffield, Brightside)asked whether the right hon. Gentleman could state what proportion of the new batteries would be made in the Government arsenals and what proportion would be given out on contract?
§ MR. WEIR (Ross and Cromarty)called attention to an item of £31,000 for "cordite, gunpowder, etc." He understood that some alteration was being made at present in regard to the manufacture of cordite, and, that being so, he did not see why so much should be spent at present in providing additional cordite. There was an Estimate of £382,000 for "small-arm and machine gun ammunition," being £40,000 in excess of the amount for the previous year. He could not understand why so much money should be spent on that item when we were only engaged in a small war in Somaliland and a smaller war in Tibet. 223 He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give some information in regard to this large expenditure. He thought he had better protect himself by moving the reduction of the Vote by £200.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item C (Ammunition) be reduced by £200."—(Mr. Weir.)
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he could not give precisely the various qualities of the cordite. There had been a change in the quality of the cordite, especially of that for use in the Navy. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that the quality was calculated according to a given velocity for each gun. The Department was manufacturing according to the existing demands. The increase was not large. Last year a comparatively small amount was asked for, because there was a surplus over from the war in South Africa which had not been exhausted. Now they were going back to the normal demand and the increase was only £40,000.
§ MR. WEIRsaid that that last explanation was so far satisfactory. But the right hon. Gentleman, in answer to an inquiry in regard to another point, said that this was a question of erosion of the barrels of the guns and not of velocity. He had raised that very point ten years ago in connection with the Lee-Metford rifle. The right hon. Gentleman told the Committee that this increase was only £40,000; hut there ought to have been a decrease of £140,000 this year, instead of an increase of £40,000, when they recollected the large stock left over from the late war. He had no desire to divide the House, but he was not satisfied to see such large sums of money expended.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that there was a time when it was in doubt as to whether it was necessary to adopt this particular quality of cordite, and there was a moderation in its manufacture. At present there was no such hesitation; and the Department was manufacturing cordite according to its needs. The 224 question of erosion did not arise on this Vote.
§ MR. WEIRsaid that was not a satisfactory explanation from a Minister who was receiving a salary of £5,000 a year. This question of the erosion of the barrels of rifles was of vital importance to the country; but the right hon. Gentleman had given no satisfactory explanation as to why there should be such a large increase in the money demanded for small-arm ammunition. He, however, would withdraw his Motion.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ * MR. AINSWORTH (Argyllshire)said that he would be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would inform the Committee whether he would take into consideration the advisability of supplying the Volunteers with ammunition at the same rate as it was supplied to the Militia and Yeomanry.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he would make inquiries in regard to that matter. In answer to the hon. Member for Brightside, he could state that the allocation of orders would follow the ordinary rule—one-third of the total would be given to the Ordnance Factories; and the remaining two-thirds to the trade.
§ MR. WHITLEY (Halifax)said that he was unable to understand the correspondence which appeared in the Report of the Auditor-General in regard to the cost of the new rifle with which the Service was to be armed. It appeared to him that a payment had been made to the London and Birmingham Small Arms Company for rifle ranges, and not on account of the new rifles. Why should a payment be made for private rifle-ranges belonging to a private company? The correspondence showed that the matter was still regarded, as it were, as a payment in advance for the new rifles. The Treasury at first objected to the payment, but subsequently assented to it on the conditions contained in the correspondence. The Committee ought 225 to be informed how much had been spent, and in what direction it had been spent.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid on a point of order that no money was being taken for the purpose mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
§ MR. WHITLEYsaid that, as he understood the matter, arrangements were being made with two companies in anticipation, apparently, of the manufacture of the new rifle.
* THE CHAIRMANIt would be disastrous to the whole system of discussing Estimates if matters were discussed which were not contained in the Estimates at all. The Secretary of State for War stated that no such payment as the hon. Gentleman imagined was contained in the Report; and, obviously, therefore the subject cannot be discussed on this Vote.
§ MR. WHITLEYsaid he would ask-where the amounts referred to in the correspondence with the Treasury appeared?
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he would repeat that the House of Commons was not asked for any money for the purpose mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
§ MR. COURTENAY WARNERasked if the Secretary of State would give the Committee some idea as to what the payments for rifles would be. He wished to know how the money was to be spent. Was it all to go to the Birmingham Small Arms Factory?
§ THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORT,) Cheshire, Macclesfieldsaid that there was no money in the Estimate before the Committee for the purpose referred to by the hon. Gentleman.
§ * COLONEL WELBYsaid he wished to know what was the definite policy of the War Office in reference to swords and lances in the mounted branches of the Army. Were those weapons to be abolished, or was the reduction in the Vote merely automatic. The matter was of importance, as the German and 226 other Continental armies had not decided to abolish the lance and sword; and, in the event of war, the British Army might be at a disadvantage.
§ COLONEL LEGGE (St. George's, Hanover Square)said he was glad his hon. and gallant friend had called attention to the question of the retention of the lance. He mentioned the matter a year ago and was informed that the decision was arrived at as a result of the recommendation of Sir Ian Hamilton. He had great respect for Sir Ian Hamilton, but he thought it would be desirable that the War Office should, before deciding, have taken the opinion of cavalry officers. Having commanded two cavalry regiments he had great faith in the lance. It would be seen from the Blue-book that most of the officers who held high command in South Africa who gave evidence before the Commission were in favour of the retention of the lance except two who were not cavalry officers. Under these circumstances be submitted that it was very desirable that the Army Order issued last year for the abolition of the lance should be reconsidered and the lance retained. We were apt to lean too much upon the experience we gathered in South Africa, but even there an urgent request was sent to Pretoria for lances, and he would not be at all surprised if on the occasion of a future war they found all the commanders writing home for lances. Lately in Somaliland, a correspondent, in reporting a pursuit by mounted infantry, stated at the end that had they had a regiment of Bengal Lancers they would have done much greater execution. He hoped, therefore, this matter would be reconsidered, and that the lance would be retained not only for parade purposes, but also for effective service in the field.
§ CAPTAIN NORTON (Newington, W.)congratulated the hon. Member for St. George's in having referred to this matter. There was considerable misconception in the mind of the House and the public in regard to the lancers. In recent years military tournaments had become popular, and the public had in consequence become more or less conversant with the way in which the lance and the sword respectively were 227 used in those contests. But in those tournaments the lancers were purposely handicapped. If a man were allowed to use a lance in the normal way in which it was used in war, that was to say, to put it in the rest and charge in the ordinary manner, everyone would admit that there could be no doubt as to the result—the man with the sword would not stand a chance. The country in South Africa was in the highest degree unfavourable for the use of cavalry, and only suited to the use of mounted infantry which used the rifle and only used their horses to get from place to place. No mounted infantry man was a true cavalry man. But everybody knew that in the time of the Indian mutiny the lance was known to be a terror to the mutineers. It was the habit of the mutineers when the dragoons came by to fall upon their faces, and all the dragoons could do was to prod them slightly on the back as they passed, but the lancers in every case pinned their man. He did not suppose it would ever fall to the lot of this country to engage again in war upon the Continent, but if it did, the entire country from the Pyrenees to Russia was one great plain which had no ground in which infantry could take cover; there were no such obstacles as were to be found both in this country and Ireland; and he was prepared to assert that in the next European war we should see cavalry play a much more important part than ever it had played in the past. If we, under such circumstances, were brought into conflict with a foreign nation, and had no lancers, and our troops were brought face to face with the lancers of that nation they would sweep away all who were not so armed. He hoped, therefore, the lance would not be abolished simply because in the case of South Africa we were fighting under conditions which were never likely to occur in any other part of the world.
§ SIR ELLIOTT LEES (Birkenhead)said he could imagine circumstances arising even in modern warfare in which the use of the lance might be advantageous, and he could conceive other conditions when the use of the battle-axe might also be advantageous, but those occasions were so remote and so rare that, in his opinion, it would not be wise to train troops in the use of either one or the 228 other. He could not see much difference himself between the character of the country in the North of Europe and that in which we were operating in South Africa, and he thought it would be most unwise, to neglect to take advantage of the experience we had obtained there. Against anything like proper scouting in any country except one so enclosed as England shock tactics must in future disappear. That might be too sweeping an assertion, but he firmly believed that we should do well to accept the judgment of Lord Roberts that mounted troops must be used more for rifle tactics than for shock tactics, and that the lance with all its historic and chivalrous associations must disappear as the true cavalry weapon of the future. He hoped we should not as a nation be so mad as to disregard the lessons of the late war.
§ * SIR CHARLES DILKEasked whether the hon. Baronet intended to suggest that the Prussians were in favour of diminishing the number of Regular cavalry, and were opposed to the lance. If not, the quotation he had given was useless, and his argument fell to the ground. It was difficult for the ordinary member of the public to avoid accepting military authority on subjects of this kind, and such authority was entirely in favour, not only of the retention of Regular cavalry for shock tactics, but of increasing the Regular cavalry in proportion to the infantry. Military opinion in France and Germany was distinctly in that direction, in spite of the difficulties connected with the training of cavalry and the short service system. He could not help thinking that the prejudice against the lancers in particular came from the public eye being attracted by the showy and out-of-date guise in which the lancer appeared in time of peace, with pennant and polished tip on the lance. But the lancer in time of war was a very different person, and the great preponderance of military opinion in the world was in favour of opportunities for shock tactics continuing and becoming proportionately even more important. The most recent investigation on the subject had been by our own War Commission, and it was almost the only point on which that body made a definite recommendation, viz., that the number of our mounted troops 229 should be increased, though it was true that they left open the question of whether the increase should be in Regular cavalry or in mounted infantry. The evidence of the present general commanding at Aldershot, and others with large South African, experience was entirely in favour of the increase of Regular cavalry as against mounted infantry, while the Esher Committee had incidentally declared in favour of the creation of mounted infantry regiments. His own opinion, based on what he believed to be the weightiest military authority, was in favour of both increased cavalry and increased Regular mounted infantry regiments. If the War Office were able, under the new scheme. to diminish, as he thought they should, the number of infantry battalions, a portion of the saving ought to be devoted to mounted infantry and an increased cavalry force The existence of mounted infantry made the existence of cavalry even more necessary. There were cases in the late war of the mounted infantry getting into such a condition that cavalry would have had great opportunities against them. In Prussian opinion it would be most unsafe to give up the lance. The opponents of that weapon were mostly those who opposed shock tactics altogether, but if the continuance of Regular cavalry as opposed to, or together with, mounted infantry was contemplated, the weight of military authority was in favour of the continuance of the use of the lance. We were somewhat haphazard in the adoption and the discarding of weapons. We suddenly gave up mountain guns, without any authority on which to base the decision. In every other country the tendency was to increase mountain artillery, but while we retained it in India, we had none in this country. In the same way the War Office seemed to have decided to give up the lance here, although it was retained on a very large scale in India. He submitted these facts to show that the decisions were come to in a haphazard fashion without being properly thought out.
§ MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL (Oldham)heartily supported the decision of the Government. The decision was not one out of which any popularity could be 230 gained, inasmuch as it ran counter to many prejudices and sentiments, but, having seen the use of the lance on the Indian frontier and during the Boer War, he could not understand how anyone who looked at the matter from an impartial point of view could possibly prefer the lance to the rifle. [An HON. MEMBER: Why not have both?] They could not have both with efficiency. It was true that the lance was not so noticeable in time of war as in time of peace, but even then the lance-pole, showing up above hedgerows or kopjes, was a sure tell-tale of the movements of mounted men. He hoped the Government would go boldly forward and throw away "ironmongery" altogether. Modern war was fought with firearms, and if cavalry were to play a great rÔle on the battle-field in the future they would have to use modern weapons, and not the sharp sticks and long irons with which the wars of savagery and mediaeval chivalry were conducted. If the Boers had imitated the Germans, adopted Regular cavalry and the lance. and had tried to employ shock tactics, they would have been overwhelmed. Thousands of British cavalry were engaged during the late war dragging sword and lance from one end of the country to the other, and it was only at Elandslaagte that they were used with any effect. He earnestly hoped the Government would adhere to their decision to discard the lance, and that they would boldly face the problem of the creation of a great rifle-armed cavalry combining skill in the management of horses with the highest development of firing tactics.
§ * MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that in regard to the question of the use of the lance he found himself in the position of succeeding to a decision which had already been arrived a That decision was the outcome of the opinion of a large number of officers, among whom were cavalry officers. At the same time he admitted that there was a body of opinion among the cavalry in favour of the restoration of the lance. He was not himself prepared to express an opinion one way or the other, but it had struck him, as a civilian observer from outside, that the conclusion was come to with some haste. He was not, however, prepared to say that, having done his best 231 to obtain the opinions of representative officers since he had had an official opportunity of doing so, there was anything like the preponderance of opinion in favour of the restoration of the lance which some hon. Members supposed. He believed shock tactics against cavalry were nearly unknown. As regarded a conflict between cavalry and infantry, an officer had expressed to him the opinion that in general it did not really very much matter what weapon was put into a cavalry man's hand for shock tactics, provided he had confidence in it and mastery of it. The bishops formerly went into battle armed with the mace, perhaps so as to avoid shedding blood, but he believed they used the weapon very effectively. There had been a partial solution of this question in the direction suggested by the Member for Birkenhead. A large addition had been made to the cavalry forces of this country of men who relied to a very large extent on the tactics. He referred to the Yeomanry. He was afraid that his contribution to the debate was necessarily somewhat lame. He had asked the opinion of the Army Council on this question, and it must lie with them whether they should recommend the re-introduction of the lance. He believed that at present the balance of opinion was against taking that course. A new cavalry drill-book, which had just been compiled by the authority of and under the direction of Lord Roberts, certainly did not tend to promote the view of those who were in favour of the reintroduction of the lance. He was aware that the opinions expressed in that book were not universally accepted in the Army. But the Army Council had authorised the publication of that book in what might be called an experimental form. A question of this sort was one which could never be definitely concluded. The necessities and experience of the day might in time point to a change. At present he believed there was a predominant opinion in the Army against the adoption of the lance, and in favour perhaps, of an extension rather than a contraction of the mounted infantry. He would inform the House at the earliest opportunity if any change of opinion was arrived at by the Army Council. Until a change of opinion had occurred he did 232 not think even a debate in that House ought really to settle the question.
§ * CAPTAIN JESSEL (St. Pancras, S.)said he was very much surprised at the remarks of the hon. Member for Oldham, because the hon. Member had seen the effects of the use of the lance both in India and Egypt. Surely it must be within the hon. Member's recollection that there was a celebrated charge at Omdurman made by lancers which led to a very considerable execution of the enemy. He was astonished that the hon. Member for Oldham thought that was unworthy of mention. With regard to the South African War, it might be within the recollection of the House that at Elandslaagte the 5th Lancers did charge and did considerable execution. The South African War, however, was not a fair instance, because there was no cavalry at all to oppose them, and it was very difficult for the British troops to pursue the enemy. To him there did appear to be some danger in treating the question in this way, and nobody in the Army knew exactly where they were in these matters. A few years ago both front ranks of lancer regiments, and the Dragoon Guards and dragoon regiments were armed with the lance; but now in consequence of the recent Army Order the lance was only to-be used for ceremonial purposes. He did not think that it was wise to altogether abolish the lance, and he thought it was advisable that some regiments, at any rate, should be trained to use the lance, which was a difficult weapon to learn to use, and they required competent instructors to teach men how to use the lance. If they abolished all the lancer regiments and the use of the lance, they would place the cavalry in a very difficult position when an emergency arose. The late Secretary of State for War had told them that he would carefully weigh the opinions he received upon this question from the military authorities in India before a final decision was taken. The greater proportion of the cavalry in India was armed with the lance, and he thought the House should be told what were the views of the Indian military authorities in regard to its use. It was by 233 no means certain that they would not have to send out regiments to fight against savages again, and, if they abolished the lance, cavalry regiments would be deprived of the advantages of using that weapon; and if at the last moment a commander asked for a regiment armed with the lance there would be no troops available who had been taught to use that weapon. There were only six lancer regiments out of thirty-one cavalry regiments, and if the Secretary of State and the Army Council thought they could reduce the number of regiments using the lance, let them at any rate decide to retain the present number of lancer regiments properly instructed with the lance. As regarded the various weapons used by cavalry, one officer had given evidence that the best weapon to use was a battle-axe, and there was considerable influential opinion before the Commission that the day of shock tactics was not yet finished. He hoped that when the question of making the cavalry drill-book permanent was considered by the War Office Council they would come to a decision to retain the lancer regiments.
§ COLONEL BOWLES (Middlesex, Enfield)said now that this question had been so fully debated he should like to allude to another subject, namely, the place where our rifles were being manufactured. The country took a very great interest in the question as to where our rifles were being made, and he invited the Government to state what proportion of the new rifles was to be entrusted to the Government factories for manufacture and what proportion was to be given to the trade.
§ MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid he was afraid that instead of small arms being manufactured at Woolwich in the future a large amount would be sent to Birmingham. He did not think that was a good plan, and as far as possible they ought to manufacture the rifles at their own factories. It was all very well to talk of using the contractors in time of war, but it was not the business of the Government to support the manufacture of small arms as a trade. He thought it would be better to have the small arms manufactured at Woolwich, 234 and in order to make sure that he would get an answer in regard to this matter he moved to reduce item "D" by £100. The previous Secretary of State for War gave a pledge that the opinion of the Indian military authorities as to the use of the lance would be reported to the House. It was very important that the Indian authorities should be consulted on this important question, and it would be well to have their view put before the House as soon as possible. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to state what was the cost of manufacturing a rifle at Woolwich and what was the price paid to contractors for a similar weapon made in Birmingham. His impression was that the rifles manufactured in the arsenal cost the country less.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item D (Small Arms) be reduced by £100."—{Mr. Courtenay Warner.)
§ * MR NANNETTI (Dublin, College Green)said that since he became a Member of the House he had repeatedly called attention to the manner in which Ireland was treated in connection with the supply of articles used by the Army. He had never got a satisfactory answer from the occupants of the Front Government Bench on that matter, but he would continue to direct attention to the subject. In the evidence the Duke of Connaught gave before the War Office Commission fume time ago, he stated, when referring to the way Ireland was treated with respect to supplies for the Army, that the work could be done cheaper, more expeditiously, and to the advantage not only of the country but of the Army, if it were done in the districts where the troops were located. Why should the people of Ireland be asked to contribute to the enormous sums voted for the upkeep of the Army when they did not receive a single benefit from the Army? The opinion of the Commander-in-Chief in Ireland should be given effect to in this matter. He appealed to hon. Members opposite to support that view, and to give Ireland a chance of supplying some of the materials which were required for the Army.
§ MR. FIELD (Dublin, St Patricksaid he was pledged to the trades 235 unions with which he was identified in Ireland to bring this matter forward on every available opportunity. It was of wider scope than had been indicated by his friend and colleague the Member for the College Green Division. In this country the people were engaged in the fiscal controversy.
* THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Member must confine himself to small arms, lances, guns, swords, and so forth. These are the only matters now before the House.
§ MR. FIELDsaid there were no small arms manufactured for the Army in Ireland, but surely when the people of that country were taxed they had a right to ask that some of the money should be expended there. When an Irish Member wished to bring this matter before the House he was ruled out of order on all sorts of technicalities, and the result was that they could never get it discussed. As an old Member of the House he said they were entitled to consideration in this matter.
* THE CHAIRMANOld Members should set a good example. I must ask the hon. Member to speak to the question now before the Committee. If he can show that in the manufacture of small arms Ireland is not properly treated, he is quite within his rights in raising the question now.
§ MR. FIELDsuggested to the Secretary of State for War that the best thing he could do would be to start a small arms factory in Ireland. Surely if they could build ships at Belfast there was no reason why skilled Irish artisans should not manufacture small arms which could be utilised not only for the Army but for the Constabulary.
§ * MR. NANNETTIasked whether he would be entitled, when the whole Vote came before the Committee, to raise the whole question of supplies for the Army.
* THE CHAIRMANIt depends what the hon. Member calls the whole question. Anything that relates to the matters included in Vote 9 he will be entitled to raise on the whole question, but he 236 cannot raise discussions on matters which are not included in this Vote.
§ MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid that during the coming year it was anticipated that there would be about 125,000 new rifles provided. Of these 71,000 were for India, 15,000 for the Navy, and 5,000 for the Colonies. For the British Army other than in India there would be 35,000 new rifles in addition to the 15,000 provided in the year just closed. In addition to that, 60,000 old rifles would be converted. The hon. Member had asked how the work was divided between the Ordnance Factories and the trade. The former got one-third, and the latter two-thirds. That was quite in accordance with the ordinary practice, and there was very good reason for it. The hon. Member seemed to think that all the work in time of peace should be done in the Ordnance Factories but it was necessary to keep the trade employed in time of peace, so that they might be available with their plant in time of emergency. The hon. Member had also asked as to the price of the rifles. It was cheaper to make the rifles in the Ordnance Factory than to get them from the trade.
§ COLONEL BOWLESHow much?
§ MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid that he believed that the comparison was as between £3 10s. and £4 10s. The hon. Member for College Green raised the question of stores being obtained in Ireland. He wished to say in the most general terms that a fair share of the supply of stores would be given to Ireland.
§ COLONEL BOWLESsaid there was an extraordinary difference between the cost, of the rifles supplied by the trade at £4 10s. each, and those made in the Ordnance Factory at £310s. each. He contended that far too large a proportion of the manufacture of rifles was given to the trade. The Indian Government ha I been very unfairly dealt with in this respect, and he was not surprised that the Indian Government was about to set up a Small Arms Factory of its own, because they found they had to pay £4 10s. for rifles which they could make for £3 10s.
§ MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs)said he had listened with the greatest astonishment to the statement of the hon. Gentleman. He was surprised that the hon. Gentleman should be responsible for an Estimate which showed that the country was paying, without adequate reason, £70,000 a year more for rifles than they could manufacture them for themselves. The hon. Gentleman said that, in order to support a certain firm, the War Office was paying £4 10s. for a rifle which could be manufactured for £3 10s.
§ Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid that the firm referred to did not get a single order.
§ MR. DALZIELsaid he thought the London and Birmingham Small Arms Company had received sufficient money during the South African war to keep them going for very many years.
§ MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid that the hon. Member imputed a grossly discreditable action to the Government, and one which he absolutely repudiated.
§ MR. DALZIELsaid he would suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he should keep his head perfectly cool. What he had said was that, for the sake of a particular firm, or for the sake of particular firms, or for the sake of private trade—whichever Way he liked to put it —£4 10s. was being paid for a rifle which could be made for £3 10s. That was a very serious admission to make at a time when the people of this country were not getting much relief from taxation. He had no other alternative than to protest against such a system.
§ MR. THEODORE TAYLOR (Lancashire, Radcliffe)said be did not want to do the Government an injustice. It was only fair to acknowledge that their reason for giving their work to factories carried on by private companies was based upon public policy, so that when large quantities were required on emergency these factories could be called on to supply them. But he would point out to the Government that it was a very bad policy to keep their own machinery idle and run the plant of private companies. It would be more prudent for the Government themselves 238 to have a reserve plant to fall back upon in case of emergency, and infinitely cheaper to keep their existing plant going, even if they had to increase it for special emergencies.
§ * MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that the question was not a simple one. It was on all fours with the question which he had' had to consider at the Admiralty in connection with the manufacture of heavy guns. When he compared the prices of naval contract work for heavy guns with the prices of the Royal Arsenal, he thought that the difference was too large, and he inquired into the justification for that difference. He could truly say that the result of that inquiry was to convince him that the difference was not unreasonable, after allowance had been made for the fact that the contracting companies had to pay interest on their capital, to make provision for bad debts, and to make profits. The hon. Member would find that there was nothing unreasonable in the difference in the two prices referred to, when the conditions under which the work was carried out were considered. He did not agree that as a matter of policy they should carry out all the work in their own workshops. Opportunity had been taken at Woolwich of increasing the plant, and allowing a certain portion of it to stand idle, to be utilised in a case of emergency. That had not been found possible with regard to heavy guns, but to a certain extent it might be desirable with regard to the Small Arms Factory. He did not think there would be any effective economy if they were to enlarge their Small Arms Factory, and instal plant which they should only use in case of war. He had followed the whole course of the ammunition demand during the South African war, and he was convinced that it was a great advantage to have a reserve supply, both of small arms and ammunition, in the possession of private firms, and that some price should be paid for that advantage. His hon. and gallant friend the Member for the Enfield Division appeared to imagine that the difference between the cost incurred in Government factories and that charged by private firms was too great. He did not agree.
§ COLONEL BOWLESsaid his contention was that a proportion of the work smaller than one-half should be given to the trade.
§ * MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that the hon. Gentleman should allow a little more freedom to those who were responsible for the supply of stores. The allocation of the orders was not arranged in any haphazard manner or without regard being had to a guiding principle. There was nothing extravagant in the prices that were paid, and that being so, was it not advisable to have two strings to their bow. No one could dispute that there must be a margin between the trade cost and the cost in the Government factories. He hoped his hon. friend would accept his assurance that there would be regular and continuous work in the Government factories, but, in the interests of the State, it was necessary to keep up the demand from the two great manufacturing centres which supplied small arms.
§ MR. STUART WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam)said he wished to express his satisfaction at the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. His own opinion was that the principle adopted should be the reverse of that enunciated by his hon. friend. If the War Department did not give a large proportion of the ordinary demand for small arms to the private trade, the capital necessary in order to supply the Government in the case of emergency would not be forthcoming.
§ MR. H.J. WILSON (Yorkshire, W.R., Holmfirth)said he wished to ask whether in regard to the price of £3 10s. proper allowance had been made for depreciation in building and machinery.
§ * MR. RENWICK (Newcastle-on-Tyne)said he gathered that the view of hon. Gentlemen opposite was that rather than give orders to private factories the Government factories should be extended and new machinery provided. If the Government accepted that advice and, in cases of emergency, employed a considerable number of workpeople for a limited period, the grievances of those workpeople would be brought before the 240 House as soon as the emergency was over and they were out of work again. As representing a constituency where there was a large number of works for the manufacture of guns and ships, he thought the country generally got the advantage of those works, and he therefore sincerely trusted that the Government would continue to give a fair proportion of orders to private firms. They had heard that when the new guns were provided the old ones were to be given to the Auxiliary Forces. The hon. and gallant Member for Taunton had said that they could not afford the expense of providing the most modern guns for the Volunteers, but when the new rifles were provided he presumed the existing rifles of the Regular Army would go to the Volunteers or Auxiliary Forces. Could the Secretary for War, under certain well-defined regulations for the protection of the Government, arrange that the rifle clubs throughout the country should get the discarded rifles at a reasonable price? If that could be arranged it would give great satisfaction and be the means of enabling large numbers of the inhabitants of this country who could not see their way to join the Auxiliary Forces to learn the use of the rifle.
§ MR. BAYLEY (Derbyshire, Chesterfield)said the statement as to the relative cost of the rifle given by the Secretary for War was absolutely unreliable. The Government were paying 25 per cent. more for rifles in the open market than they could manufacture them for in the most extravagant way possible. Why were they doing it? What were the firms which they were dealing with, and were they manufacturing a relatively superior article? Of course it was right for the Government to have two strings to their bow, but had they any arrangement with private firms that they did not make the rifles for foreign countries or for natives whom we might have to fight in South Africa? Had they any arrangement that when they had given a pattern of their own rifle, which ought to be the best in the world, the contracting firms did not make an identical rifle for other countries? There could be no doubt that there were firms in the country, and plenty of them, capable of making a rifle at the same price they were paying 241 Now, which gave 15 to 20 per cent. to the shareholders.
§ COLONEL DENNY (Kilmarnock Burghs)said he could not understand how there could be any such difference as that mentioned by the hon. Member for Enfield between Government work and private work. Private manufacturers had to pay no more for their material, and had certainly not less efficient labour, and it therefore became a question of how the difference could be accounted for. One presumption was that the cost of the buildings, depreciation upon which had to be allowed for in private establishments, was wiped off in the case of the Government against the taxpayer whenever completed. Depreciation on tools, machinery, and other charges were generally not taken into account by Government, and such a thing as rent was also unknown, so before the official cost was compared with that of a private firm the two establishments ought to be put on exactly the same footing.
§ MR. PEEL (Manchester, S.)said he desired to be quite clear as to what cost was included. Was it merely the prime cost of the armaments, or would it also include all the costs that ought to be included, such as a proper charge for superintendence the cost of machinery, and a proper sum for the depreciation of machinery? If it included those it would make an immense difference in the price of the rifle made by a private firm and that made by the Government. In his own constituency a firm tendered for the manufacture of fuses, and found they could not come within 40 per cent. of the price at which fuses could be made at Woolwich. That tender necessitated the putting down of very expensive hydraulic machinery for making the fuses. It was necessary in some cases to make a sacrifice in order that the country might have a number of firms available who were able to supply these articles in time of need. But the sacrifice was not so great as it appeared. He wished to know whether in the figures quoted to the House all these necessary calculations had been taken into account.
§ * MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid the cost given of the articles made by the Government included 10 per cent. for depreciation of machinery and 5 per cent. for depreciation of the building, and, of course, all the out-of-pocket charges and every charge for the ordinary management. It did not include items which were naturally included in a private firm such as rent, interest on capital, and profit. He pointed out that the direction which the hon. Member for Enfield desired to take was not that which the Government had been recommended to take. The whole matter had been considered by the Mowatt Committee which recommended that, so far from reducing the proportions of distributions, the Government should increase it by giving two-thirds of the work to the trade and doing one-third itself. And they justified that advice by saying that such a policy would result in these firms being available in time of war.
§ COLONEL BOWLESsaid the reason for the Small Arms Factory at Enfield was because in the time of the Crimean War the trade broke down so hopelessly that the Government had to start a factory of its own.
§ MR. DALZIELexpressed the opinion that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman had left the situation exactly where it was before. They were paying £1 more for rifles than it cost the Government to make them. Repeated Questions had been put to the Government on this matter but they had not evinced the slightest desire to answer them. The only point brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman for the payment of this extra £1 to these private firms for rifles was that these firms made bad debts. They did not make bad debts with the Government and if they made bad debts with the Governments of other countries why should we step in and pay more in order to cover those debts. A more feeble argument was never put forward by any Government. The whole tendency of this debate had been to condemn the Government. So far as this Vote was concerned the country would not assent to what was practically a Vote in aid to provide for the bad debts of a private firm.
§ * MR. RENWICKreminded the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State of the Question put in an earlier part of the debate as to the supply of discarded service rifles to rifle clubs.
§ * MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid they would have to look forward for a long time before they got the new service rifle; but when the time came he would give the matter his sympathetic attention as he believed it would make the work of rifle clubs more effective and make their expenses less.
§ MR. COURTENAY WARNERthought some misconception had arisen upon this question. These contracts had been confused with others on a much greater scale. This was not a question of protecting a great trade; this was a small trade that was being propped up by the War Office. No answer had been given to the Question as to who were the firms, and his impression was there were only two or three who comprised the trade. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of uncertainty. There was no question of uncertainty in this case, this was a contract the War Office gave out regularly year after year. If it was a question of keeping up a great trade it might be worth while to make a sacrifice, but here there was no question of keeping up a great trade. It had been stated that they were now paying £4 10s. to the trade for the manufacture of a rifle, when they could make rifles in their own factories at a cost of £3 10s. The Swiss Government made a good rifle for 30s. As they had not received a satisfactory answer upon this point he should insist upon taking a division as a protest against this propping up of a small industry. He was not interested in any way, and he was speaking simply in the interests of the country and the taxpayers who were heavily involved and who were being robbed. He hoped the House would enter a strong protest against this practice which he hoped would be stopped in the near future.
§ * MR. NANNETTIcomplained that the tradesmen of Ireland were not given any chance at all to compete either for the manufacture of small arms or anything else. He wished 244 to have an expression of opinion from the Front Ministerial Bench as to whether Ireland in the future was going to be given a chance in these matters or not. Would the Government give contractors in Ireland a fair opportunity without imposing upon them the harassing conditions which were put upon them at the present time. The Financial Secretary to the War Office stated that the time might arrive when they would have an opportunity of competing, but that would be he supposed when the millennium arrived. Some hon. Members argued that it was necessary for the Government to have their own factories when an emergency arose, and other hon. Members asserted that it was necessary to encourage private contractors as well. In these matters they did not take Ireland into consideration at all except when they wanted men to fight their battles. It was quite time that the Government gave Ireland a fair proportion of the work towards which Ireland had to pay a large proportion. They did nothing but rob Ireland and then they expected Irishmen to be devoted and loyal servants of the British Empire; but they never would be loyal so long as such injustices were done to them. It was a scandal to talk of the claims of Sheffield and Enfield, which had been fully recognised by the Government, while the claims of Ireland were entirely ignored. It was painful to him to have to appeal to the House in this manner, but it was his duty as a representative of one of the great manufacturing cities of Ireland to show that there was one representative at least ready to stand up in this House and give expression to the views of Ireland upon this question. He was surprised at the silence of the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Sloan) on this question. When in Belfast recently some prominent manufacturers conrplained to him of the manner in which they were treated by the Government in this matter. It was a great injustice to compel them to pay such heavy taxes, year after year, without giving them a fair proportion of the work. A great deal of the Government work could be done cheaper, better, and more expeditiously in Ireland, and he hoped that before long British justice would come to their aid and demand 245 that a lair share of the money spent upon the upkeep of the Army and Navy should be spent in Ireland.
§ MR. WEIRsaid that some time ago he asked the right hon. Gentleman to state what proportion of the improved pattern of rifles were manufactured in Government factories and what proportion were made by private contractors. The reply given to him was that the details of orders given to private firms could not be published. The right hon. Gentleman refused to give details then, but he had had to give those details in this debate at the cost of two and a half hours of the time of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that private firms received £4 10s. for making a rifle, whilst the Government factory at Enfield produced the rifle for £3 10s. He sympathised with his hon. friend the Member for Dublin in his effort to get work for Ireland, and he should be glad to find some of the rifles produced in Scotland where there were plenty of men idle. Eleven years ago when he raised this question he was informed that large orders had been sent to Birmingham as well as to Enfield. He never could understand why so many orders went to Birmingham, and he wished to know if larger orders were now being sent to Birmingham than was the case eleven years ago. He had never been interested, even to the extent of a penny. in any gun factory, but he desired to know, and the Committee were entitled to know, the names of the firms to which orders had been given.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERwas understood to say that the firms were the Birmingham Small Arms Company and the London Small Arms Company.
§ MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid that as it appeared to be suggested that he had kept back the information, he would explain that the Question put conveyed such a disrespectful suggestion 246 that he deliberately declined to answer it.
§ MR. DALZIELsaid that such an idea never entered his mind, and the hon. Member was the last who should have suggested it. If his remarks were susceptible of that interpretation he was extremely sorry and would at once withdraw them. He still thought, however, that his demand for the names of the firms who received the contracts was a fair request and one that ought to have been acceded to.
§ MR. WEIRsaid that if the question had been answered in the first instance much time would have been saved. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would say how many rifles had been ordered from each firm? He understood that 70,000 had been ordered outside Government works, and that the orders were equally divided between the Birmingham and the London firms. Was that correct? The rifles cost £1 apiece more when made by outside firms, so that £70,000 of the taxpayers' money was being thrown away. He strongly protested against such an extravagant system by which these private firms were bolstered up and enabled to pay large dividends to their shareholders.
§ * SIR CHARLES DILKEremarked that our rifles had always been dearer than the Continental rifles, owing to the larger number of pieces in the construction, although, roughly speaking, the foreign rifles were as good as our own. In every case the cost had been considerably reduced after the process of manufacture had gone on for some time, and he desired to know for how long the War Office were bound to pay £4 10s. for the contract rifle now?
§ * MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid the right hon. Baronet was perfectly correct in his remark. The Question he had put was an important one which he could not answer straight away. It had been the case that prices fell after regular manufacture was established, and he hoped it would be so in the case of this 247 rifle. He suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should put down a Question on this subject.
§ MR. COURTENAY WARNERpointed out that the London Small Arms Company had its factory at Birmingham, so
§ that both firms were practically Birmingham firms.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 142; Noes, 198. (Division List No. 77.)
249| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) | Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale) | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling. | Harmsworth, R. Leicester | O' Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.) |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Harrington, Timothy | O'Malley, William |
| Barlow, John Emmott | Harwood, George | O'Mara, James |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst | Hayden, John Patrick | O'Shee, James John |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Helme, Norval Watson | Partington, Oswald |
| Bell, Richard | Henderson, A. (Durham) | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Block, Alexander William | Hobhouse, C.E. H. (Bristol, E.) | Rea, Russell |
| Roland, John | Horniman, Frederick John | Reddy, M. |
| Bolton, Thomas Dolling | Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk. | Redmond, John E.(Waterford) |
| Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F. (Middlesex) | Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) | Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries) |
| Brigg, John | Jacoby, James Alfred | Rigg, Richard |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea) | Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) |
| Burns, John | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Robertson, Edmund (Dundee). |
| Burt, Thomas | Jordan, Jeremiah | Robson, William Snowdon |
| Caldwell, James | Joyce, Michael | Runciman, Walter |
| Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton | Kearley, Hudson E. | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) |
| Cawley, Frederick | Kilbride, Denis | Schwann, Charles E. |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Lambert, George | Shackleton, David James |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) | Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Layland-Barratt, Francis | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel |
| Cromer, William Randal | Leamy, Edmund | Sheehy, David |
| Crombie, John William | Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Dalziel, James Henry | Levy, Maurice | Slack, John Bamford |
| Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) | Lewis, John Herbert | Smith, Samuel (Flint) |
| Davies, M. Vaughan(Cardigan) | Lough, Thomas | Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants |
| Delany, William | Lundon, W. | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway) | Lyell, Charles Henry | Sullivan, Donal |
| Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr) |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) | Tillet, Louis John |
| Dobbie, Joseph | M'Crae, George | Tomkinson, James |
| Donelan, Captain A. | M'Hugh, Patrick A. | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Doogan, P. C. | M'Kean, John | Ure, Alexander |
| Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) | M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) | Waldron, Laurence Ambrose |
| Edwards, Frank | Markham, Arthur Basil | Wallace, Robert |
| Emmott, Alfred | Mooney, John J. | Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Weir, James Galloway |
| Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) | Moss, Samuel | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Farquharson, Dr. Robert | Moulton, John Fletcher | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Fenwick, Charles | Murphy, John | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Field, William | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Nolan, Col. Jn. P. (Galway, N.) | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.) |
| Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) | Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) | Wilson, John (Falkirk) |
| Fuller, J. M. F. | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | Nussey, Thomas Willans | |
| Griffith, Ellis J. | O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES, Mr. Courtenay Warner and Mr. Theodore Taylor. |
| Burdon, Sir W. Brampton | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | |
| Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) | |
| Hammond, John | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy | Bartley, Sir George C. T. |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Bain, Colonel James Robert | Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Balcarres, Lord | Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Mich. Hicks |
| Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O. | Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r) | Bignold, Arthur |
| Arrol, Sir William | Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds) | Blundell, Colonel Henry |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.) | Bousfield, William Robert |
| Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. | Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne |
| Bull, William James | Heath, A. Howard (Hanley) | Ratcliff, R. F. |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Heath, James (Staffords., N.W. | Reid, James (Greenock) |
| Butcher, John George | Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W. | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow) | Hickman, Sir Alfred | Renwick, George |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Hope. J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside | Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge |
| Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) | Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil | Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green |
| Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire) | Hudson, George Bickersteth | Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) |
| Chapman, Edward | Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred. | Robinson, Brooke |
| Charrington, Spencer | Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) | Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye |
| Clive, Captain Percy A. | Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh) | Round, Rt. Hon. James |
| Coates, Edward Feetham | Kerr, John | Russell, T. W. |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | King, Sir Henry Seymour | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) |
| Coddington, Sir William | Knowles, Sir Lees | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Coghill, Douglas Harry | Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- |
| Codings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Laurie, Lieut.-General | Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander |
| Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C.R. | Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) | Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse) |
| Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole | Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth) | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert |
| Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Cripps, Charles Alfred | Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks., N.R. | Sharpe, William Edward P. |
| Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile | Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham) | Simeon, Sir Barrington |
| Cust, Henry John C. | Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) | Skewes-Cox, Thomas |
| Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Sloan, Thomas Henry |
| Davenport, William Bromley | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Denny, Colonel | Long, Col. Chas, W. (Evesham) | Spear, John Ward |
| Dickson, Charles Scott | Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.) | Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs. |
| Disraeli, Conings by Ralph | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon | Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth | Thorburn, Sir Walter |
| Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Duke, Henry Edward | Macdona, John Cumming | Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. |
| Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart | Maconochie, A. W. | Tuff, Charles |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) | Tuke, Sir John Batty |
| Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc.) | Malcolm, Ian | Valentia, Viscount |
| Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Maxwell, Rt. Hn. H. E. (Wigt'n | Vincent, Col. Sir C.E.H (Sheff'ld |
| Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriessh. | Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter) |
| Fisher, William Hayes | Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton | Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H. |
| Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon | Mitchell, William (Burnley) | Warde, Colonel C. E. |
| Flannery, Sir Fortescue | Moon, Edward Robert Pacy | Welby, Lt.-Col. A.C.E.(Taunton |
| Flower, Sir Ernest | Morpeth, Viscount | Welby, Sir Charles G.E.(Notts, |
| Forster, Henry William | Morrison, James Archibald | Whiteley, H.(Ashton und-Lyne |
| Fyler, John Arthur | Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer | Whitmore, Charles Algernon |
| Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H. | Mount, William Arthur | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R. |
| Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk. | Murray, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Bute) | Wilson-Todd, Sir W.H. (Yorks.) |
| Gordon, Hn. J.E. (Elgin&Nairn) | Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) | Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath) |
| Gordon, Maj. E. (T'r Hamlets) | Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm |
| Gore, Hn G.R.C. Ormsby-(Salop) | Newdegate, Francis A. N. | Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson |
| Core, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Line. | Nicholson, William Graham | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. R. Stuart |
| Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon | O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens | Wrightson, Sir Thomas |
| Goulding, Edward Alfred | Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) | Wylie, Alexander |
| Graham, Henry Robert | Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington) | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Gretton, John | Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley | Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H. |
| Groves, James Grimble | Percy, Earl | Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong |
| Gunter, Sir Robert | Platt-Higgins, Frederick | Younger, William |
| Hall. Edward Marshall | Plummer, Walter R. | |
| Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. | Pretyman, Ernest George | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes. |
| Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward | |
| Hare, Thomas Leigh | Pym, C. Guy | |
| Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th | Quilter, Sir Cuthbert | |
| Haslam, Sir Alfred S. | Randles, John S. |
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ * MR. NANNETTIsaid that in connection with the Vote for miscellaneous stores he wished to raise the question of the supplies for canteens in Ireland.
§ MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid it would not be in order to raise the question of the canteens on this Vote.
§ * MR. NANNETTIsaid he assumed that the Vote included a certain sum of money for the payment of the officials connected with the canteens.
* THE CHAIRMANYou cannot discuss payments for wages under a Vote for miscellaneous stores. Obviously that cannot be done.
§ * MR. NANNETTIasked whether the refreshments to the troops were not supplied by the officials of the canteens as stores and supplies and could he not discuss them.
§ * MR. NANNETTIsaid the men who served in the canteens were not civilians.
§ * MR. NANNETTIOne moment, with all due respect to you. I do not think it is fair to try to rule any Member out of order in this way, even though he be a mere Irish Member.
* THE CHAIRMANI do not think the hon. Member is justified in using such an expression. If anything, I have given him a great deal more rope than other Member. I must ask him to accept my ruling when I tell him that he cannot raise the point he wishes to raise on this particular Vote
§ * MR. NANNETTII, of course, accept your ruling. It was the tenor of your own observation that led me so far to forget myself.
§ COLONEL LEGGEasked whether any steps had been taken to reduce the weight carried by cavalry horses. In dragoon regiments the weight was something like twenty stone. He had been informed, in answer to former inquiries, that the question was under consideration. He hoped the War Office would be able to devise some means of reducing the weight. At present a saddle weighed two and a half stone without anything at all on it.
§ MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)said he raised this question twelve or thirteen years ago. He at that time gave the weight of the saddle used in British cavalry regiments, and pointed out that in other countries a lighter form of saddle was employed. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had stated that the weight carried by a 252 cavalry horse was twenty stone. He believed that in the Blues and the Life Guards the weight of trooper and accoutrements and saddlery was twenty-three stone, which was enough to kill any horse. The matter had not been attended to from that day to this, and he hoped the Secretary of State for War, in whom the Committee recognised a determined reformer, would do something to have the weight reduced. In what direction it should be made was not for him to say.
§ MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid that he wanted to ask two or three Questions as to Items F and G. Under Item F there was a sum for Miscellaneous Services, £345,000, and under Item G Equipment Stores, there were various amounts totalling in all £465,000. Were these what he might call the remnants of the Mowatt Commission? The House had been promised a week or two ago the Report of the Commission itself, but it had not yet been issued, and he thought that the Secretary of State should be able to state-as it was germane to this discussion—that it would be shortly available to hon. Members. Another Question he had to put was, whether the War Office were going to establish a buying section in connection with the Ordinance Department? If so, that would be against the recommendation of the Dawkins Commission, which was composed pre-eminently of business men; and he would attach much greater weight to their recommendations than to those of the Committee of Three.
§ MR. BURDETT-COUTTS (Westminster)said he wished to ask whether Item G., "Transport Vehicles," included ambulance waggons?
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERYes.
§ MR. BURDETT-COUTTSsaid he wanted to know whether any progress had been made by the Department in improving the ambulance waggons which had caused so much suffering during the war in South Africa. He was aware that prizes had been offered for an improved ambulance waggon; but he was not aware as to what result had followed from that 253 offer. Those who were in South Africa knew that the ambulance waggons then in use in the British Army were most unsuitable; and it was important to know whether any improvement had been made upon them.
§ SIR CARNE RASCHsaid he would like to associate himself with the hon. Gentleman who had spoken as to the weight which was put on cavalry horses All the ironmongery they had to carry was ridiculous. But it was still more ridiculous that the light cavalry should absolutely have to carry a stone more weight than the heavy dragoons! The hon. Member opposite said that the Commission which sat under the presidency of the Secretary of State for the Home Department suggested that a reduction of the expenses of cavalry officers might be affected by ding away with gold lace on the uniforms. The object of that was to get into cavalry regiments the sons of country gentlemen who could shoot and ride—not the sons of South African millionaires or young men of the Mirshall and Snell-grove type. He had never been able to understand why saddlery was given as part of their kit to officers of the 6th Dragoons and not to the 5th Dragoons.
§ MR. NANNETTIsaid that it had been proved before the Royal Commission on the subject that waggons, carts, ladders, and other materials used by the Army could be made with advantage in Ireland. He had in his possession a return which stated that for the year 1902 nearly £4,000 worth of brushes had been sent over from Woolwich for Army purposes in Ireland. He thought the House would agree with him that he had a right to stand up there and say that Irish manufacturers should have a proportionate share in that expenditure. The Duke of Connaught had stated publicly that it was ridiculous to send to Woolwich for a cart which could be better produced in Ireland. He had letters from the Dublin, Cork, Belfast, Dundalk, Newry, Enniskillen, Athlone, and Mullingar Cart and Wagon Builders Societies protesting against the system of importing these articles and asking him to make a protest against the continuance of the practice. Hon. Gentleman opposite spoke about things being dumped down in England from 254 Germany and France; but they never remembered that they were parties to dumping English goods on Ireland. He moved the reduction of the Vote by £100.
§ Motion made and Question proposed, That Item F (Miscellaneous Services) be reduced by £100."—(Mr. Nannetti.)
§ MR. MOONEY (Dublin County, S.)said he supported his hon. friend in the reduction he had moved on this Vote, as a protest against the way Ireland had been treated in this regard. The present Commander-in-Chief in Ireland was in favour of the change advocated by his hon. friend.
§ MR. WEIRcalled attention to the item of £336,000 spent on stores and complained that all these stores were manufactured in England, although there were workmen in Scotland quite as competent to manufacture them as any in England. Scottish workmen were capable of manufacturing these stores quite as well and more cheaply than English workmen, and it was a scandal that all this money should be expended in England and not a shilling of it in Scotland. If the division was pressed he should certainly support it.
§ MR. FIELDsaid he had been in communication with the authorities for the last ten years on the question of the establishment of depots for stores in Ireland. He asked that these depots should be used in the same way as the depots in England, and that the people of Ireland should have an equal opportunity with the English for tendering for such stores. When Irish Members proposed something that would decrease cost and increase efficiency, and at the same time give some satisfaction to the Irish working man, it seemed most unwise, from a Treasury point of view even, for the Government not to accept that proposition. Why should Irish manufacturers be placed at a disadvantage and have to bear the expense of sending their goods to Woolwich instead of being able to send them to the depots in Dublin? He did not ask for anything unreasonable, and he expected a symp[...] answer to his complaint. He was certain that if this question was considered in 255 an impartial spirit it would be found that he was only asking for something that would be found to be of advantage to the War Office as well as to England. This was not a small matter. It was a great principle, which was that the Irish people should have equal opportunity with the English to tender for these stores, and he hoped to be assured, when the right hon. Gentleman replied, that Ireland would receive the fair play to which she was entitled.
§ * MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid some misconception appeared to have arisen with regard to this matter. It seemed to be supposed that the Government selected the persons from whom they ordered stores. That was not so. There were classes of goods that were manufactured cheaply and on a large scale in Ireland, and the tenders of Irish manufacturers for those classes of goods had been accepted. There were other classes of goods either not manufactured at all or only manufactured in a very small way in Ireland, and for those classes Irish manufacturers did not tender. The hon. Member appeared to think also that Ireland was unfairly treated by reason of the goods manufactured there having to be inspected at the central depot in England, but that was a matter which affected everyone alike, it being necessary to inspect the goods, which had to be according to sample, at the central depot where the sample was kept. No obstacle was thrown in the way of Irish manufacturers by reason of that inspection, because the only cost entailed was the cost of returning the rejected articles, and that did not affect the manufacturers very largely. As they were proposing to decentralise the commands of the Army; and with the commands the buyers of the Army, it would naturally be the case that a great many more stores would be purchased locally. That change would lead
§ to a very great development of local buying of small articles. He did not think the local buying of large quantities of stores, which were made in large quantities, would be an advantage.
§ * MR. NANNETTIsaid that although the statement of the right hon. Gentleman held out some hope for the future he could not accept it as an answer to his complaint. All he asked was that the Irish people should have an equal opportunity with other people to tender, and they had not so long as everything had to be sent to Woolwich. Therefore, however favourable the answer of the right hon. Gentleman might be considered to be, he must divide the Committee on this question.
§ MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEasked what the method of buying was going to be with regard to this decentralisation of stores.
§ * MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid the matter was now under consideration.
§ MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTearnestly appealed to the hon. Member for the College Green Division not to divide the Committee, but to be satisfied with the favourable reply given by his right hon. friend.
§ * MR. NANNETTIsaid he should be the last man in the world not to consider the convenience of Members of the House, but he had a duty to discharge to his constituents, and until this system was killed he should be compelled to divide the Committee on every occasion when it was discussed.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 107; Noes, 190. (Division List No. 78.)
259| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) | Caldwell, James | Delany, William |
| Barlow, John Emmott | Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) | Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Cawley, Frederick | Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.) |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Channing, Francis Allston | Dobbie, Joseph |
| Bell, Richard | Condon, Thomas Joseph | Donelan, Captain A. |
| Black, Alexander William | Crean, Eugene | Doogan, P. C. |
| Boland, John | Cremer, William Randal | Edwards, Frank |
| Brigg, John | Dalziel, James Henry | Esmonde, Sir Thomas |
| Burt, Thomas | Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) | Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan |
| Farquharson, Dr. Robert | Lyell, Charles Heary | Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) |
| Fenwick, Charles | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Riobson, William Snowdon |
| Field, William | M'Hugh, Patrick A. | Rose, Charles Day |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | M'Kean, John | Runciman, Walter |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) | Schwann, Charles E. |
| Griffith, Ellis J. | Markham, Arthur Basil | Shackleton, David James |
| Hammond, John | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel |
| Harrington, Timothy | Moss, Samuel | Sheehy, David |
| Harwood, George | Murphy, John | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Hayden, John Patrick | Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) | Smith, Samuel (Flint) |
| Helme, Norval Watson | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Sullivan, Donal |
| Horniman, Frederick John | Nussey, Thomas Willans | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk. | O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.) | Thomas D. Alfred (Merthyr) |
| Hutton, Alfred F. (Morley) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Ure, Alexander |
| Jacoby, James Alfred | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) | Wallace, Robert |
| Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea) | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) | Wason, Jn. Cathtart (Orkney) |
| Jordan, Jeremiah | O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon. N.) | Weir, James Galloway |
| Joyce, Michael | O'Malley, William | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Kearley, Hudson E. | O'Mara, James | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Kilbride, Denis | O'Shee, James John | Whitley, J. K. (Halifax) |
| Lambert, George | Partington, Oswald | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.) |
| Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) | Power, Patrick Joseph | Wilson, John (Falkirk) |
| Layland- Barratt, Francis | Rea, Russell | Woodhouse, Sir J.T (Huddersf'd |
| Leamy, Edmund | Reddy, M. | |
| Levy, Maurice | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Nannetti and Mr. Mooney. |
| Lewis, John Herbert | Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries | |
| Lundon, W. | Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile | Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Cust, Henry John C. | Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Hudson, George Bickersteth |
| Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O. | Davenport, William Bromley | Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse |
| Arrol, Sir William | Dickson, Charles Scott | Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph | Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh) |
| Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. | Dixon-Hart land, Sir F. Dixon | Kerr, John |
| Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | King, Sir Henry Seymour |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Knowles, Sir Lees |
| Balcarres, Lord | Duke, Henry Edward | Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r | Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart | Laurie, Lieut.-General |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds | Elibank, Master of | Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) |
| Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. | Faber, George Denison (York) | Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir. J. (Manc'r | Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks., N.R. |
| Bartley, Sir George C. T. | Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham) |
| Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Mich. Hicks | Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) |
| Bignold, Arthur | Fison, Frederick William | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine |
| Bolton, Thomas Dolling | Flannery, Sir Fortescue | Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham) |
| Bousfield, William Robert | Flower, Sir Ernest | Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S. |
| Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn | Forster, Henry William | Lonsdale, John Brownlee |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Fyler, John Arthur | Lowe, Francis William |
| Bull, William James | Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk. | Loyd, Archie Kirkman |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin&Nairn) | Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth |
| Butcher, John George | Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred |
| Campbell, Rt. Hn J. A. (Glasgow | Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc. | Macdona, John Cumming |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon | MacIver, David (Liverpool) |
| Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Maconochie, A. W. |
| Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire | Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) | M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) |
| Chapman, Edward | Groves, James Grimble | M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin |
| Charringion, Spencer | Hall, Edward Marshall | Malcolm, Ian |
| Clive, Captain Percy A. | Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. | Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir H. E. (Wigt'n |
| Coates, Edward Feetham | Hambro, Charles Eric | Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriessh. |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd nderry | Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G. |
| Coddington, Sir William | Hare, Thomas Leigh | Mitchell, William (Burnley) |
| Coghill, Douglas Harry | Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th | Moon, Edward Robert Pacy |
| Callings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Haslam, Sir Alfred S. | Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow) |
| Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C.R. | Heath, A. Howard (Hanley) | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole | Heath, James (Staffords, N.W. | Morrison, James Archibald |
| Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Henderson. Sir A. (Stafford, W. | Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer |
| Cripps, Charles Alfred | Hickman, Sir Alfred | Mount, William Arthur |
| Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute) | Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson | Valentia, Viscount |
| Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) | Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H. (Sheff'ld |
| Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) | Robinson, Brooke | Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir William H. |
| Nicholson, William Graham | Round, Rt. Hon. James | Warde, Colonel C. E. |
| O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) | Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton |
| Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) | Rutherford. W. W. (Liverpool) | Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts. |
| Pease, Herb Pike (Darlington) | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- | Whiteley, H.(Ashton und.Lyne |
| Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley | Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Percy, Earl | Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse) | Wilson, A. Stanley (York. E.R. |
| Platt-Higgins, Frederick | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) | Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks. |
| Plammer, Walter R. | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert | Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath |
| Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | Scott, Sir S. (Murylebone, W.) | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm |
| Pretyman, Ernest George | Sharpe, William Edward T. | Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson |
| Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward | Skewes-Cox, Thomas | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Pym, C. Guy | Sloan, Thomas Henry | Wrightson, Sir Thomas |
| Quilter, Sir Cuthbert | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) | Wylie, Alexander |
| Randles, John S. | Spear, John Ward | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Raseh, Sir Frederic- Carne | Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs. | Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong |
| Ratcliff, R. F. | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) | Younger, William |
| Reid, James (Greenock) | Thorburn, Sir Walter | |
| Renwick, George | Thornton, Percy M. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes. |
| Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge | Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. | |
| Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green | Tuff, Charles | |
| Rigg, Richard | Tuke, Sir John Batty |
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.