§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,700,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 779 on the 31st day of March. 1904, for Additional Expenditure, in respect of the following Army Services, viz.:—
|Vote 1. Pay, &c. of the Army||2,000,000|
|Vote 6. Transport and Remounts||2,100,000|
|Vote 7. Provisions, Forage, and other Supplies||2,030,000|
|Excess Appropriations in Aid (Votes 1, 6. 7, 9. and 10)||3,430,000|
§ MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE (Bristol, E.)
drew attention to the difference in the form in which this Vote was presented to the House from that of the Vote which had just preceded it. He pointed out that in the Supplementary Vote for the Navy, it first of all gave the amount of the Supplementary Estimate, and immediately underneath that was the amount of the whole Estimate required. This, he pointed out, was an infinite convenience to hon. Members who desired to criticise these Estimates, and he trusted that on a future occasion, which he hoped would never occur, when the War Office required to present a Supplementary Estimate, they would present it in the form adopted by the Admiralty. The sum asked for by this Vote was £150,000 for the Imperial Yeomanry. The Financial Secretary had stated that he had put down a certain sum on the Paper as the total sum. He (Mr. Hobhouse) had put a reduction on the Paper as a protest against the principle adopted in the Supplementary Vote. The amount asked for the Imperial Yeomanry in the year 1902 was £l,350,000,and the year1902–3 £1,300,000. Then a Supplementary Vote for £750,000 was asked for, and in 1903–4 a sum of £10,000 was put down, and now the hon. Gentleman came and asked for a Supplementary Vote for £150,000. The total sum asked for in the whole period on the Estimates was £3,750,000, of which 33 per cent. was taken upon Supplementary Votes. That disclosed a very undesirable state of things, because in future they would not be sure that the amounts presented to the House in the 780 Estimates would be all that was required. He thought it would greatly lighten the task of the War Office if they presented all that was required in one Estimate. He complained that a good deal of the difficulty which arose over the Yeomanry accounts was due to the fact that 35,000 men were sent to South Africa with an insufficient number of paymasters to keep their accounts for them, there being only two to keep the whole of the accounts of the Yeomanry. These Yeomanry were enlisted for a term of service of either a year or for the whole period of the war. Some were enlisted in the winter of 1902. There could be no pretext for putting forward this account that there were still existing in the service any relics of an organised Imperial Yeomanry Corps, and it must be that these accounts had not yet been disentangled from the mass of documents at the War Office. If the matter stopped there, he should not say anything further, but out of the total number of Yeomanry a very considerable portion—not less than 2,000 or 3,000—never left these shores at all. Some of them were enlisted in the London district, but they never went out of the country. One thousand of them the moment they got to South Africa were shipped back again. Consequently they had been paying 5s. a day for some 2,500 men who never took part in the war. They were all fitted out in the most costly manner and remained at Aldershot some time and were afterwards disbanded. Some of the methods adopted as shown in the Blue-book were worth mentioning. Some of the Yeomanry were enlisted by the hall porter at the War Office. Others obtained forms from the same hall porter, filled them up, and in return were given commissions. All this was proved by the evidence in the Blue-book, and it did not reflect credit upon the War Office. This was all given in the evidence of Major Knight in answer to question No. 7170. In the case of one man who was enlisted the only thing he could do was to play the piano and he refused to get on a horse at all. Several officers arrived drunk without their drafts, and 184 officers were sent off out of 530.
§ * THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,) Belfast, W.
asked if it were relevant on this Vote to discuss the whole of the organisation in regard to the war.
* THE CHAIRMAN
I was going to ask the hon. Member if he maintained that the pay of these individuals came on the Vote; otherwise his observations would not be relevant.
§ MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE
said it was impossible for him to say whether the pay of a particular officer was included in this Vote or not.
MR, CHARLES HOBHOUSE
said there was £150,000 in the Vote for the pay of the Imperial Yeomanry, and it was impossible for a person in the House to say to what individual items it referred. All they knew was that it referred to the Imperial Yeomanry.
* THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member cannot refer to individual cases. He is entitled to comment upon the money spent and the rate of pay, but he is not entitled to bring in individual cases.
§ MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE
said he should not have done so only he was challenged by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. A great deal of the confusion of the accounts was consequent upon sending out the Yeomanry in a very haphazard manner. One squadron was put upon one ship, and another on another ship, and upon arrival in South Africa they never saw each other until they came home. If troops were sent out in this higgledy-piggledy fashion there must be confusion in the accounts. Consequently delay in paying the men who had earned the money ensued, and the financial control of the War Office was reduced to a farce, and gave no satisfaction to anybody concerned. He moved a reduction of the Vote by £100.
§ MR. COURTENAY WARNER (Staffordshire, Lichfield)
said that yesterday on a former Vote the excuse was made that the accounts could not be got in because of negotiations with the Colonies, and certain claims were made which took time to decide. There was, however, nothing of the kind in this case, because the men had been home for eighteen months. He knew one great difficulty was that there were no paymasters, and the accounts might have gone in to the wrong person, but that was entirely the fault of the War Office. As far as these men were concerned it appeared that all their accounts must have been in about eighteen months ago. It was said that the officers did not send in the accounts properly, but that again was the fault of the War Office, because they sent out officers before they had learned any of their duties. Naturally, there was a great deal of confusion in consequence. He thought they ought to protest against such gross negligence. This was not the original wiping out, but the second wiping out and finishing off of the business. They wished to know if this merely round sum, which was not the actual amount required, would finish off these payments. He could not understand how the War Office could now have accounts coming in from persons who ought to have ceased to draw pay more than twelve months ago. This was the kind of accounts which the War Office were very fond of putting in without explanation, and which they could not fathom, and it was apparently for the second batch of Yeomanry. It was the second batch which was so inefficient.
* THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member is not entitled to go into that. I have already given my ruling upon this point.
§ MR. COURTENAY WARNER
said that some of these cases would naturally come into this Vote, and unless they could get some assurance as to who this Vote applied to, the natural assumption was that it applied to the last batch. He hoped this was the last they would hear of the Imperial Yeomanry in South Africa, and that the question of their pay would not be brought up year after year.
§ * SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean)
said they had had no opportunity until to-day of pointing out how misleading were the accounts presented to them, during the war, on many of the matters in connection with the Imperial Yeomanry. This had been amply proved by the witnesses before the Commission. The whole confusion in these accounts was explained by the facts set forth in the evidence of Lord Chesham and others before the Commission. All this money had been paid long ago. There had been no case of money recently paid for the Yeomanry. As far as he could make out, this large sum left over was an imaginary account, a sort of banking account for money which had been actually paid out. The confusion and delay, in connection with the accounts, was much greater than could be accounted for by mere delay in the making up of regimental accounts for money which was paid eighteen months ago. It was pointed out in the House, over and over again, that the confusion in regard to the Yeomanry arose because the Government had acted in defiance of their own inspector, Colonel Lucas. This was shown by correspondence which had been accidentally laid before the House. It was a correspondence relating to other matters as well, but it showed that the whole of the Yeomanry system broke down because the Government refused to send out drafts. The Prime Minister in this House and Lord Raglan in another place had thrown the whole blame for the confusion on the military commanders in the field, but now the evidence of those commanders showed that Yeomanry were sent out prematurely and when they were unfit for service, and that they were forced upon them against their wish. Then, as regarded officering, it was stated at the time that a large number of officers had been sent home as incompetent. The evidence taken before the Commission showed that that was correct, and that officers were sent home as hopelessly incompetent. He would not develop this question, but as the present was probably the only opportunity they would have of referring to it, he wished to point out to the Committee that every word which he and others had said about the Imperial Yeomanry in the field had been justified 784 to the full by the evidence before the Commission.
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK,) Surrey, Guildford
said the explanation of this charge was a very simple one. The money taken I last year was £2,050,000 and only £1,587,000 could be brought into account before 31st March. Obviously in any other business except the public service, in which the accounts terminated automatically on 31st March, it would not have been necessary to ask for this Vote. With regard to the administration of the Yeomanry by the War Office, he made no apology whatever for the failure of the War Office to employ all the Yeomanry available at the end of the war.
§ MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE
said that men sent out to Africa were disbanded as useless in the middle of the war.
§ MR. BRODRICK
said that if the hon. Member supposed that it was possible for the Secretary for War to supervise the training of all the men demanded in such large numbers as they were demanded in South Africa, he must be under a delusion. Special tests were laid down in every case, and the Adjutant-General assured him that those tests had been applied. If it was true that some of the men could not ride or shoot, they must have evaded the tests. The only thing a Minister could do was to see that the tests were imposed which his military advisers considered adequate. He admitted that the second contingent were raised too hastily, and were sent out too hastily. The Government claimed credit for absolute bonâ fides in the statement made on the authority of those who advised them, that the war was coming to an end; and hon. Members who believed and frequently stated that that was merely an electioneering cry attacked the Government for not sending out drafts to continue the war, which the Government thought was coming to an end. In 1901 no drafts were raised, as arrangements were being made for all classes of troops to be sent home. Within a fortnight he had to go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for authority to send out fresh troops, and all the mounted men he could lay hands on. Shortly afterwards they began to enlist 785 again for the Yeomanry; and it was in answer to the urgent appeals of Lord Kitchener that men left this country before, in his opinion, they should have gone. There was no doubt that the men were not sufficiently trained, and they gave both Lord Roberts and himself considerable anxiety before they were sent out. When the third contingent of Yeomanry were raised he asked Lord Roberts to certify that every man who left the country was properly trained for the purpose for which he was required, and he did so; and he had no complaint whatever of that contingent. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had attacked the quality of the officers. When in ordinary years 600 to 800 officers were commissioned for the Regular forces and that number increased in 1899 to 1,500, in 1900 to 2,500, and in 1901 to 4,500, did it not stand to reason that when officers had been found with the greatest difficulty for the other forces the choice for the Yeomanry should be much more limited. That had proved what he had long felt—the necessity of having a very much larger reserve of officers than we had had hitherto.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)
said he was not very clear as to this £150,000. When was the money paid? He understood from his right hon. friend that it was paid before the beginning of the present financial year; but if that were so it was very extraordinary that it should come up on the Supplementary Estimates this year. Or, if the men were not paid before 31st March last, he thought it was a gross scandal that they should have been kept fifteen or eighteen months without their money. When the right hon. Gentleman was speaking about the criticism which had been made as to the efficiency of the new Yeomanry, he wondered whether the right hon. Gentleman had read the Report of the War Commission. In that Report Lord Chesham said that of 1,900 Yeomanry under his command, 75 per cent. had never been on a horse before they passed the test, and 25 per cent. had ridden very little. They had never had an opportunity of discussing this matter in the House of Commons; and when criticism was made, the right hon. Gentleman seemed inclined rather to cast 786 the blame upon Lord Kitchener. But Lord Kitchener repudiated responsibility. Fuller explanation ought to be given as to the real nature of this transaction, because it would enable the Committee to understand better War Office finance in the future.
§ THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORT,) Cheshire, Macclesfield
said he thought he could speak with some little authority about this matter at any rate. The facts were as follows. The officer had an account with his men, and afterwards an account with the War Office which paid upon the lists sent in. He admitted that these pay lists were in a state of confusion, and he could not say absolutely that every single man had been paid. It was a fact that it would have been very much better for all the officers concerned, and possibly for the country, if some better provision had been made for the proper payment of the men during the war. That everybody recognised. It must not be forgotten that the first contingent of Yeomanry was despatched from this country under conditions of hurry. He himself happened to be in command of the first squadron which sailed from Great Britain, and he remembered perfectly that he was not ready when they got orders to sail on the following Saturday, and he did so sail under protest. The answer to his protest was that great pressure had been put on the War Office by the authorities in South Africa, and there was an earnest desire and necessity to get the men to the front. It had been asked, why were not the units followed up with drafts? No doubt that would have been better. At first drafts were sent out, but they were not continued, because the Government believed that the war was coming to an end. He could assure the hon. Gentleman who laughed, that the Government did believe the war was coming to an end, and that there were some credulous people in South Africa who believed likewise. He himself, however, had doubts about it; and as a matter of fact he pressed for drafts to fill up his regiment. The second contingent of Yeomanry was sent out. There were some unsuitable men among that body, but there were also a large number of splendid men. A 787 thousand of that contingent were sent to fill up the corps with which he was serving, and he assured the Committee that, speaking generally, they were a very fine lot of men indeed. They could not ride, yet they could shoot extremely well, and for pluck, dash, and determination they were quite equal to the first contingent. They could not ride, but they took to riding with extraordinary aptness. They remained in South Africa for many months, and rendered magnificent service to the Empire. The reason why there had been delay in completing these accounts was that when they came into the War Office they were in confusion. The officers who were sent out had, like himself, no familiarity with regimental accounts, and where they had with them a member of the permanent staff, like a sergeant-major, the accounts were kept pretty straight. But when the sergeant-major was wounded, or sick, or was lost to the unit, nobody was able to take over the pay lists. In the end, therefore, the lists came into the War Office in a state of confusion, and it was inevitable that a long time should be taken to investigate them. Special officers of great ability and experience had unravelled the mystery of these accounts, and the men had been paid, he believed, in all cases. There were, however, sums of money due as gratuities to officers which had been withheld until their accounts had been properly audited. He could assure the Committee that no further item would appear on the Estimates; at any rate it would not come up in the form of a Supplementary Estimate. He believed that this sum of £150,000 was the final settlement of the whole account.
§ MR. BUCHANAN (Perthshire, E.)
said the speech the hon. Gentleman had just delivered, so far as the Yeomanry was concerned, was satisfactory, but so far as the War Office was concerned it was very unsatisfactory. With regard to the delay in the payment of the Yeomanry the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary had said that in all probability those claims had all been paid before the 31st of March last. If that were so, then what had been outstanding since that date had been the payments due to the officers who had advanced money for the sake of their 788 men. That made it all the more hard to understand the Estimate presented last year and that presented to-night. The Secretary of State for India had told the Committee that on the 31st of March there was £450,000 not paid out of the sum voted last year, and had gone on to state that if the War Office had been any other body than a public department they would have held it over and spent it next year. But the right hon. Gentleman must have known that the full satisfaction of these claims was going on very slowly, and he must have become aware that they had not been able to spend all their money, and that there would be many of these claims outstanding, but the Estimate of the previous year was nothing like the £450,000 now stated to be wanted but an Estimate of £10,000. Would the right hon. Gentleman explain why under those circumstances last year they only asked for the paltry sum of £10,000 and now came to the House with this unaccountable sum of £150,000.
§ SIR EDGAR VINCENT (Exeter)
thought the Committee ought to press for something more definite as to whether the Yeomanry were or were not paid before the 31st of March. He thought the hon. Gentleman was in error in stating that. It was absurd to suppose that the officers advanced money out of their own pockets to pay their men. This discussion had certainly destroyed whatever impression the Committee might have had before as to the soundness of the War Office finance. The Estimates were mere tokens and emblems and represented nothing like what was really required. The one thing which distinguished English finance favourably from that of other countries was the fact that the financial exercise of one year was kept entirely separate from that of the year which followed it. If the guiding idea of English finance were once lost we should lose the accuracy of the Budget.
§ * MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
said he did not pretend to be a postmaster in these matters, but he really did not think the matter was so involved as hon. Members supposed. These accounts were all rendered, but were not rendered at the 789 time. Some were brought into the Army accounts for the financial year and the others had not been rendered in time for that account.
§ SIR EDGAR VINCENT
Were these sums paid out of the Treasury in the last financial year or this financial year?
§ * MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
said there was no doubt that they were paid, and therefore it was necessary in the coming year to cover these payments out of the military chest. The hon. Member for Perthshire had asked why it was that the whole of this account was not estimated for at the beginning of the year; that was accounted for by a circumstance with which the hon. Gentleman was well acquainted, namely, that the accounts were rendered up to the end of the year; but the surrender of the actual balance did not take place until the October or even the November following, when settlements were drawn up in the War Office for the October of the preceding year. When the Estimates were framed it was necessary that they should be framed on the knowledge possessed by the War Office. In the War Office it was believed that these claims would have come in and would have been passed before the surrender of the balances. Owing to the complication of the accounts, however, these amounts did not come in for payment at the time that the balances were surrendered. In all these cases the accounts had been passed since the surrender of the balances.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)
said it appeared to him that there was some little uncertainty about this matter. It was clear now that this £150,000 had been spent in the financial year 1902–3, but had not been brought into the account of the Appropriation Bill for that year. The Committee was now in this strange position, they were asked to transfer this amount of £150,000 which was admittedly spent in the year 1902–3 to the expenditure of the year 1903–4. With regard to the amount of £900,000 referred to on the previous evening. Last year when they passed the Appropriation Account they thought they had thereby prevented any Minister from appropriating any money to any 790 other purpose than that for which it was appropriated. But that it appeared was all moonshine. This £150,000 it appeared was paid out of the military chest, which it seemed to him was an immense suspense account to which the Government had paid money and thus defeated the Appropriation Account. The House having passed that Account thought they had the Government absolutely secure against taking money for any purpose for which no appropriation had been made by that specific act of Parliament, but the Government were in such a position that without the authority of Parliament they were able to find £900,000, pay it away, and then three or four years afterwards come to this House and ask them to sanction that proceeding. Such disclosures as this showed that our financial system was absolutely defective; that the Government had power which Parliament never thought they possessed; and that it was time for them to put their financial house in order.
§ MR BROMLEY DAVENPORT
said he feared the hon. Gentleman was labouring under some error. The procedure was quite common. These men had to be paid week by week out of the money provided by the officers who depended on the paymaster to draw it from the military chest. It could not possibly come into the account until the end of the financial year.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES
asked if this £150,000 was paid by the Treasury into the military chest in 1902–3 was it not treated as expenditure by the Treasury in that year.
§ SIR EDGAR VINCENT
said unless it was regarded as expenditure by the Treasury it was impossible to work from account to account.
§ MR. GEORGE WHITELEY (Yorkshire, W.R., Pudsey)
said it seemed to him that the whole of the financial affairs of the War Office were in a fashion muddled up. Money was laid out under the exigencies of the moment and they had to discover afterwards where it was to come from. Then they were told that in the pressure of events 791 drafts of Yeomanry were hurried out to the war who could not ride. This disclosed a state of affairs which if it occurred in a commercial undertaking would bring it to a state of bankruptcy within twelve months. In the reorganisation of the War Office the Secretary for War and the Financial Secretary should turn their attention first of all to its financial affairs. In all businesses the whole amendment depended on the finance and if the finances of the War Office were in an orderly state then there would be a good result, but if they were not there would always be a muddle.
§ * MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
agreed that it was desirable that the finances of the War Office should be put upon a basis which was beyond criticism. He was glad to be able to inform the House that the subject was now being considered with a view to recasting the whole of the finance of the War Office. Hon. Members appeared to think that the explanation which he had made just previously was not very lucid, but what he said in that explanation was absolutely correct although it might not have been quite clear. He was as conscious of the fact that there must be reform in the finance of the War Office as any hon. Member could be and he was endeavouring to reduce the finance of that department to such a condition of simplicity that all would be able to understand it as well as the hon. Member who had just spoken appeared to understand it now. With regard to sending out Yeomanry who were not able to ride, they had a precedent for that; one of the smartest cavalry regiments in the French Army had been made out of an infantry regiment which could not ride, but which after six weeks training became one of the crack cavalry corps in the Army. With regard to the finances of the War Office, active minds were now engaged on the problem and endeavouring to simplify and make them more lucid. That being so, he asked the Committee to say that the matter had been discussed sufficiently and that the Vote might now be taken.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
pressed for the answer to the question of the hon. 792 Member for Exeter, whether the item of £150,000 was accounted for last year.
§ * MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
No, Sir, it was not brought into the account last year, it was paid to the soldiers but not accounted for; it was appropriated for another purpose, but used for this.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
That is really exceedingly unfair to the House of Commons. Here is money appropriated for one purpose which is used for entirely another purpose.
§ * MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
thought that the hon. Member was under a misapprehension. When he was at the Admiralty, it was recognised that they might transfer money within the limits of a Vote, by permission of the Treasury.
§ MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE
said he understood the money voted last year and paid away for this purpose was about £200,000. If they voted this money again to-night how was it going to be disposed of?
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
on a point of order asked whether, during the current financial year, a Vote could be asked in respect of sums of money voted in the previous year and paid away. Could there be another Vote this year for the same thing?
* THE CHAIRMAN
said he doubted whether this was the first time that this had occurred. It appeared to be a very common process. The money was actually paid out to certain individuals but was not brought into account within the financial year, and the House, in passing this Vote, would be simply sanctioning a payment which had now been finally completed. The completion of the payments and the closing of the accounts took place in the present financial year.
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 190; Noes, 123. (Division List No. 10.)795
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart||Maconochie, A. W.|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)|
|Allhusen, Augustus Hen. Eden||Fison, Frederick William||M'Calmont, Colonel James|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Flannery, Sir Fortescue||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)|
|Arnold-Foster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.||Flower, Sir Ernest||Malcolm, Ian|
|Arrol, Sir William||Forster, Henry William||Martin, Richard Biddulph|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Fyler, John Arthur||Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.)|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Galloway, William Johnson||Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Gardner, Ernest||Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.|
|Baird, John George Alexander||Garfit, William||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)|
|Balcarres, Lord||Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.||Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)||Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin & Nairn)||Morrell, George Herbert|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Gordon, Maj. E. (T'r Hamlets)||Morrison, James Archibald|
|Bartley, Sir George C. T.||Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby-(Line.)||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Goulding, Edwd. Alfred||Mount, William Arthur|
|Bignold, Arthur||Greene, Sir E. W (B'ry S Edm'nds||Muntz, Sir Philip A.|
|Bigwood, James||Greville, Hon. Ronald||Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Hain, Edward||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)|
|Bond, Edward||Hall, Edward Marshall||Myers, William Henry|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith||Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens|
|Brassey, Albert||Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Harris, F. Leverton (Tynemouth||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Brymer, William Ernest||Haslett, Sir James Homer||Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley|
|Butcher, John George||Heath, A. Howard (Hanley)||Percy, Earl|
|Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A (Glasgow)||Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.||Platt-Higgins, Frederick|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Heaton, John Henniker||Plummer, Walter R.|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire||Hogg, Lindsay||Pym, C. Guy|
|Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside)||Ratcliff, R. F.|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Houston, Robert Paterson||Reid, James (Greenock)|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A (Worc||Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil||Renwick, George|
|Charrington, Spencer||Hudson, George Bickersteth||Richards, Henry Charles|
|Clive, Captain Percy A.||Hunt, Rowland||Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)|
|Coates, Edward Feetham||Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton||Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson|
|Coghill, Douglas Harry||Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop||Rolleston, Sir John F. L.|
|Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Kerr, John||Rollit, Sir Albert Kayo|
|Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Keswick, William||Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert|
|Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas||Kimber, Henry||Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter|
|Cripps, Charles Alfred||Knowles, Sir Lees||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile||Laurie, Lieut. -General||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Cubitt, Hon. Henry||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth)||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|Dalrmyple, Sir Charles||Lawson, Jn. G. (Yorks., N. R.)||Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)|
|Davenport, William Bromley||Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Denny, Colonel||Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Dickson, Charles Scott||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Simeon, Sir Barrington|
|Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.||Skewes-Cox, Thomas|
|Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.||Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.||Smith, H. C (North'mb, Tyneside|
|Doulgas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers||Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.)||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)||Spear, John Ward|
|Duke, Henry Edward||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)||Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)|
|Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Lucas, Reginald, J. (Portsmouth||Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)|
|Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart||Tuft, Charles||Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks.|
|Stock, James Henry||Tuke, Sir John Batty||Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath|
|Stone, Sir Benjamin||Valentia, Viscount||Wylie, Alexander|
|Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)||Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. C (Oxf'd Univ||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)||Webb, Colonel William George||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Pellowes.|
|Thorburn, Sir Walter||Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E (Taunton|
|Thornton, Percy M.||Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.)|
|Tollemache, Henry James||Whiteley, H (Ashton und Lyne|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)||Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Goddard, Daniel Ford||Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)|
|Ailen, Charles P.||Grant, Conic||Partington, Oswald|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Griffith, Ellis J.||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Harwood, George||Rea, Russell|
|Bell, Richard||Hay den, John Patrick||Reckitt, Harold James|
|Blake, Edward||Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.||Reddy, M.|
|Boland, John||Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Brigg, John||Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Holland, Sir William Henry||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)||Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.||Rigg, Richard|
|Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson||Hutchinson. Dr. Charles Fredk.||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Burns, John||J ones, William (Carnarvonshire||Roche, John|
|Burt, Thomas||Jordan, Jeremiah||Runciman, Walter|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||Joyce, Michael||Shackleton, David James|
|Caldwell, James||Kearley, Hudson E.||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Cameron, Robert||Kilbride, Denis||Sheehy, David|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)|
|Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Slack, John Bamford|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)||Smith, Samuel (Flint)|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Leng, Sir John||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Crean, Eugene||Levy, Maurice||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Cremer, William Randal||Lloyd-George, David||Sullivan, Donal|
|Crombie, John William||Lundon, W.||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Cullinan, J.||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Tennant, Harold John|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||M'Hugh, Patrick A.||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Davies, M. Vanghan (Cardigan||M'Kean, John||Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)|
|Delany, William||Markham, Arthur Basil||Toulmin, George|
|Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway||Mooney, John J.||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)|
|Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.||Murphy, John||Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Doogan, P. C.||O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)||Whiteley, George (York, W. R.|
|Duncan, J. Hastings||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Farquharson, Dr. Robert||O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Flynn, James Christopher||O'Dowd, John|
|Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.|
|Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.||O'Malley, William|
|Gilhooly, James||O'Mara, James|
§ Question put accordingly, "That Item, Vote 1, Sub-head F (C), Pay, etc., of the Corps of Imperial Yeomanry (South796
§ Africa), be reduced by £100."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 122: Noes, 190. (Division List No. 11.)799
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.||Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Boland, John|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Brigg, John|
|Allen, Charles P.||Bell, Richard||Broadhurst, Henry|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Blake, Edward||Brown, George M. (Edinburgh|
|Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson||Holland, Sir William Henry||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Burns, John||Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.||Rea, Russell|
|Burt, Thomas||Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Reckitt, Harold James|
|Caldwell, James||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Cameron, Robert||Jordan, Jeremiah||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Joyce, Michael||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton||Kearley, Hudson E.||Rigg, Richard|
|Crean, Eugene||Kilbride, Denis||Roberts, John Bryu (Eifion)|
|Cremer, William Randal||Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Crombie, John William||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Roche, John|
|Cullinan, J.||Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)||Runciman, Walter|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Leng, Sir John||Shackleton, David James|
|Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan||Levy, Maurice||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Delany, William||Lloyd-George, David||Sheehy, David|
|Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway||Lundon, W.||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)|
|Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Slack, John Bamford|
|Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.||M'Hugh, Patrick A.||Smith, Samuel (Flint)|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||M'Kean, John||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Markham, Arthur Basil||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Doogan, P. C.||Mooney, John J.||Sullivan, Donal|
|Duncan, J. Hastings||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)||Murphy, John||Tennant, Harold John|
|Farquharson, Dr. Robert||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||O'Brien, James F. K. (Cork)||Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)|
|Flynn, James Christopher||O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)||Toulmin, George|
|Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)|
|Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)||Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Gilhooly, James||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John||O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)||Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Grant, Corrie||O'Dowd, John||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Griffith, Ellis J.||O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||O'Malley, William||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Harwood, George||O'Mara, James|
|Hayden, John Patrick||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Charles Hobhouse and Mr. Warner.|
|Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.||Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)|
|Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.||Partington, Oswald|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Forster, Herny William|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Fyler, John Arthur|
|Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden||Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A (Worc||Galloway, William Johnson|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Charrington, Spencer||Gardner, Ernest|
|Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.||Clive, Captain Percy A.||Garfit, William|
|Arrol, Sir William||Coates, Edward Feetham||Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn)|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Coghill, Doulgas Harry||Gordon, Maj. E. (T'r Hamlets)|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)|
|Baird, John George Alexander||Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon|
|Balcarres, Lord||Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas||Goulding, Edward Alfred|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds||Cripps, Charles Alfred||Greene, Sir E. W (B'ry S Edm'nds|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile||Greville, Hon. Ronald|
|Bartley, Sir George C. T.||Cubitt, Hon. Henry||Hain, Edward|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Dalkeith, Earl of||Hall, Edward Marshall|
|Bignold, Arthur||Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.|
|Bigwood, James||Davenport, William Bromley||Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Denny, Colonel||Harris, F. Leverton (Tynemouth|
|Bond, Edward||Dickson, Charles Scott||Haslett, Sir James Horner|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith||Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Hay, Hon. Claude George|
|Brassey, Albert||Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E||Heath, A. Howard (Hanley)|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.|
|Brymer, William Ernest||Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Duke, Henry Edward||Hogg, Lindsay|
|Butcher, John George||Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside|
|Campbell, Rt. Hn J. A (Glasgow||Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart||Houston, Robert Paterson|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Howard, Jn. (Kent, Faversham|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Fison, Frederick William||Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil|
|Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire||Flannery, Sir Forsescue||Hudson, George Bickersteth|
|Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Flower, Sir Ernest||Hunt, Rowland|
|Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton||Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)||Smith, H. C (North'mb. Tyneside|
|Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Kerr, John||Myers, William Henry||Spear, John Ward|
|Keswick, William||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens||Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)|
|Kimber, Henry||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)||Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk|
|Knowles, Sir Lees||Parkes, Ebenezer||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.|
|Laurie, Lieut.-General||Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)||Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart|
|Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley||Stock, James Henry|
|Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth)||Percy, Earl||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Lawson, Jn. G. (Yorks., N. R.)||Platt-Higgins, Frederick||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)||Plummer, Walter R.||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ|
|Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)||Pretyman, Ernest George||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)|
|Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Pym, O. Guy||Thorburn, Sir Walter|
|Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.||Ratcliff, R. F.||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.||Reid, James (Greenock)||Tollemache, Henry James|
|Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.)||Remnant, James Farquharson||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale||Renwick, George||Tuff, Charles|
|Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)||Richards, Henry Charles||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth||Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)||Valentia, Viscount|
|Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green||Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H|
|Maconochie, A. W.||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Rolleston, Sir John F. L.||Webb, Colonel William George|
|M'Calmont, Colonel James||Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye||Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E (Taunton|
|M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)||Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert||Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.|
|Malcolm, Ian||Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter||Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne|
|Martin, Richard Biddulph||Royds, Clement Molyneux||Willoughby, de Eresby, Lord|
|Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.)||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)||Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H.(Yorks.)|
|Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford||Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)|
|Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander||Wylie, Alexander|
|Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)||Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Morrell, George Herbert||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Morrison, James Archibald||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.|
|Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer||Seely, Maj. J. E. B.(Isle of Wight|
|Mount, William Arthur||Simeon, Sir Barrington|
|Muntz, Sir Philip A.||Skewes-Cox, Thomas|
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ And, it being after half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
§ Resolution to be reported to-morrow; Committee also report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.