Commons Sitting of 25 February 1904

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, viz.:—London and India Docks Company Bill; London and North Western Railway Bill. Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.
  PRIVATE BILLS (NO STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO APPLICABLE).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders not previously inquired into are applicable, viz.:—Saddleworth and Springhead Tramways (Abandonment) Bill. Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS BILL.
  "For conferring further powers on the London United Tramways (1901) Limited, for constructing tramways, and widening and altering roads, and acquiring lands, in the counties of Middlesex, Bucks, Surrey, and London; and for other purposes," presented, and read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  READING CORPORATION BILL.
  Order [9th February], that the Reading Corporation Bill be committed, read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
PETITIONS.
  LICENCES (RENEWAL).
  Petitions against alteration of Law; from Llandilo; Hay; Burn Cross; Batley; Hyson Green; Aberkenfig; Hanley; Eastney; St. Helens; Hackney (two); West Somerset; Cadoxton Barry; Dinas; Taunton; Hyde; Barry Dock; Penarth; Morganstown; Llantrisant: Ilford; Eccles; Rhosdn; Bermondsey; Huttoft; Orrell; Llangadfan; Bedfordshire; Stockport; Nottingham; Warminster; Newport; Canterbury; Longridge; Rillington; Overton; Clitheroe; Northamptonshire; and Shepherds Bush; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petition from Lewisham, against; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  HISTORICAL MANUSCRIPTS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Copy presented, of Calendar of the Manuscripts of the Marquess of Ormonde, K.P., preserved at Kilkenny Castle, New Series, Vol. III. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  HISTORICAL MANUSCRIPTS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Copy presented, of Report on Manuscripts in Various Collections, Vol. III. The Manuscripts of J. B. Clarke-Thorn-hill, esquire, Sir T. Barrett Lennard, Baronet, Pelham R. Papillon, esquire, and W. Cleverley Alexander, esquire [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Miscellaneous Series, No. 602 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CIVIL SERVICE AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1904–5.
  Copy presented, of Estimates for Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending 31st March, 1905, together with a Copy of the Memorandum by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury relating thereto [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 75.]

  PAPERS LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  1. Inquiry into Charities (Administrative County of Durham). Further Return relative thereto [ordered 14th February, 1900; Mr. Grant Lawson]; to be printed. [No. 76.]
  2. Inquiry into Charities (Sunderland County Borough). Return relative thereto [ordered 9th February; Mr. Griffith-Boscawen;] to be printed. [No. 77.]

  VOLUNTEER BATTERIES (QUICK-FIRING GUNS.)
  Address for "Return showing the names of the Volunteer Batteries which have been supplied with 4·7 Quick-firing Guns."—(Colonel Pilkington.)
  SMALL DWELLINGS ACQUISITION ACT, 1899 (IRELAND).
  Return ordered, "giving the names of the local authorities in Ireland that have put into operation The Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, 1899; the number of applicants to whom money has been advanced by each such authority for the purpose of acquiring ownership of their houses under the Act; the amounts of the advance in each case; and the rate of interest charged to applicants on the loan."—(Mr. O'Shaughnessy.)
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

    Historical Manuscripts Commission.— Manuscripts of Irish Franciscans.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if the representative of the Historical Manuscripts Commission has reported on the matter of the Manuscripts of the Irish Franciscans; and, if so, what is the nature
    964
    I of his report; and what steps will now be taken to publish the manuscripts.
    (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The report of the inspector sent to Dublin to examine the manuscripts of the Irish Franciscans has only just been received, and the Historical Manuscripts Commissioners are now considering how they can best carry into effect his recommendations. His report states that there is a good three months work still to be done over and above the rearrangement of the papers which he considers advisable, before a satisfactory report upon the manuscripts could be placed in the printer's hands. Every effort will be made to complete the publication as soon as possible.

    Consular Reports—Weights, Measures and Values in English Terms.
    MR. BRIGG; To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will instruct the Consuls in foreign countries to be careful that the weights, measures, and values contained in their reports are rendered as nearly as possible in English terms.
    (Answered by Earl Percy.) His Majesty's Consuls have been recently reminded of their instructions in regard to this matter.

    Facilities for Cotton Growing in the Tokar District.
    MR. BRIGG: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will instruct the Consul at Berbera to report as speedily as possible on the adaptability of the district around Tokar for growing cotton, and the method he would suggest for inducing the inhabitants to take up its culture, and also report on the best means for its transit to England.
    (Answered by Earl Percy.) The question is engaging the attention of Lord Cromer. I shall be happy to confer with the hon. Member on the subject.

    Inadequate Accommodation at Lerwick Post Office.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: To ask the Postmaster-General if the Government are aware of

    965
    the inadequacy of accommodation provided at Lerwick post office for the employees and for the public; and, if so, when the construction of a new building may be looked for.
    (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I am aware of the inadequacy of the accommodation provided in the present post office at Lerwick, and am taking steps to obtain a site for a new building as soon as possible.

    Pension of ex-Postman P. J. Cahill.
    MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that ex-postman Patrick J. Cahill, of Dublin, passed the Civil Service examination in September, 1871, secured his appointment to the establishment, as messenger, in London, and continued in that capacity (having in March. 1872, been transferred to Dublin) until March, 1875; that he was then allocated the duty which for about twenty years previously had been performed by an established postman; and, if so, whether, having regard to his claim on the Department, as secured by his Civil Service certificate and appointment to the establishment in September, 1871, and to the fact that he was not required to pass any further examination, he will explain the grounds on which the Department refuses to treat as pensionable his certificated service from September, 1871, to September, 1878.
    (Answered by Lord Stanley.) Cahill was a boy messenger up till 1875, when he became an auxiliary postman. Service as boy messenger is not pensionable. The auxiliary duty which he performed from 1875 to 1878 was only part time duty and was also not pensionable. This duty had been performed from 1873 to 1875 by another auxiliary postman and not by an established postman. Previous to 1873 it had formed part of an established postman's duty, but a rearrangement was made in that year under which the established duty was split up. Although Cahill had to obtain a Civil Service certificate in 1871 for appointment as boy messenger, a further certificate became necessary and was obtained for him when he was appointed tot he establishment. It was only from
    966
    the time when he began to perform a full time adult duty that his service could be reckoned for pension.

    Promotion of Telegraphists to Engineer's Department.
    MR. YOXALL (Nottingham, W.): To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will explain why it is proposed to curtail the opportunities at present given to telegraphists to obtain appointments in the engineering department by recruiting the office staffs in this section from boy copyists.
    (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The question of the manner in which the staff of the engineer's offices shall be recruited is under consideration. I am not prepared to say at present what proposals will be made.

    Applications for Postmastership of Castle Douglas.
    MR. BELL: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will give the date and number of the Post Office Circular in which applications were invited for the postmaster ship of Castle Douglas; and if he will state the number of applicants for the position.
    (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The vacancy was not notified in the Post Office Circular, as I filled it by the appointment of the Assistant Secretary to the Natal Post Office. This officer had been transferred to the Colonial service from the Post Office service in London; and, as he had gained much useful experience and rendered excellent service in Natal, I was glad to be able to comply with his application for reappointment to a post in this country.

    Regulations for Halfpenny Post.
    MR. H. C. RICHARDS: To ask the Postmaster-General if his attention has been called to the surcharges made by the Department under the halfpenny postal rate on open order forms where the word "send" has been employed, whilst the words "per Sutton" are permitted to pass under the halfpenny rate; and, if so, will he give directions for remedying the inconvenience caused to traders by the delay

    967
    of such correspondence as well as by its surcharge.
    (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The surcharges to which the hon. Member refers are in accordance with the published regulations of the halfpenny post. In framing these new regulations, under which the public are allowed to write in orders for goods sent for a halfpenny various particulars, including an indication of the mode of consignment of the goods, such as "per Sutton" it was not found practicable to permit the insertion of manuscript instructions such as send, although this would of course pass if printed. Attention has been recently called to the regulations on these points both in the Post Office Guide and by the exhibition of notices in every post office.

    Recommendations of Committee on Aged Pensioners Bill.
    MR. CHANNING: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether His Majesty's Government propose to take any steps in pursuance of the Report of the Select Committee on the Aged Pensioners Bill last session either to carry out the general recommendations of the Committee, by initiating a scheme of pensions with the restrictions and machinery suggested in the Report, or else to give effect to the special recommendations of the Committee as to the separation of the aged and infirm poor, now in workhouses, from paupers who are imbecile, and the provision of special treatment in cottage homes, or otherwise.
    (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I am afraid that I cannot hold out any expectation that the Government will propose legislation, during the present session, for the purpose of giving effect to the recommendations of the Committee. It is competent for the guardians to provide separate accommodation for the indoor poor who are aged and infirm, and I readily give attention to any proposals made to me by a board of guardians for this purpose.

    Local Government Board and the Widening of Lordship Lane, Tottenham.
    MR. BIGWOOD: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware
    968
    that the Local Government Board have refused their consent, under Section 60 of The Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, to a sale by the London County Council to the Middlesex County Council of land required for the widening of Lordship Lane, Tottenham; whether consent is withheld in spite of the fact that the Middlesex County Council has compulsory powers of purchase, under their Light Railways Order and because the Board require the sale to be made under the provisions of The Lands Clauses Act, 1845; and will he explain why the County Council of Middlesex should be put to the cost attending the payment into and out of Court involved by procedure under this Act.
    (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I am aware of the case referred to and of the powers of the Middlesex County Council under their Light Railways Order. I am, however, advised that the proposed transaction must be carried out under The Lands Clauses Act, 1845, and that no consent on the part of the Local Government Board, under Section 60 of The Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890. would obviate the need for complying with the procedure under the Act of 1845.

    Sentences on Adults Involving Use of the Birch.
    MR. J. A. PEASE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many sentences have been passed on adults under which those sentenced have been directed to receive strokes with the birch during the last twelve months, and on what occasions.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) The Returns for 1903 have not yet all been received, and I cannot therefore answer the Question as regards the last twelve months. In 1902 the number of persons above the age of sixteen sentenced to be birched was four. Three were cases under The Garrotters Act, 1863, and one was a case under The Vagrancy Act, 1824.

    Petitions Presented under Clause 3 of the Patents Act.
    COLONEL DENNY: To ask the President of the

    969
    Board of Trade if he will state how many petitions have been presented under Clause 3, Sub-sections 1 and 5, of the Patents Act, 1902: and what has been the result.
    (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) Three petitions have been presented to the Board of Trade under the section in question. One petition has been withdrawn by the petitioner. The other two are still pending. I am considering whether any steps should be taken to call public attention to the provisions of the Act.

    Board of Trade Inquiry into Wreck of Schooner "William S. Green."
    MR. SOARES (Devonshire, Barnstaple): To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the wreck of the schooner "William S. Green," at Downend, near Croyde, on the North Devon coast, and to the inquest held on the 23rd inst. on the bodies of the men drowned by reason of the wreck; and, if so, whether he will order an inquiry by the Board of Trade into the circumstances of the wreck, and will see that such inquiry shall embrace the question of the efficiency of the coastguard service in the vicinity of the disaster.
    (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) Yes, Sir, my attention has been called to the case of the "William S. Green" to which the hon. Member refers, and I have ordered a formal investigation to be held into the circumstances which will, of course, embrace the efficiency of the coastguard in so far as it has any bearing on the case.

    Sale of Crown Lands for Building Purposes.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydfil): To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is aware that Crown lands belonging to the Duchy of Lancaster, in Yorkshire, are being sold as freehold building sites; and, if so, whether steps will be taken to prevent this perpetual alienation of land now in possession of the Crown.
    (Answered by Sir William Walrond.) The Chancellor and Council of the Duchy
    970
    have occasionally sanctioned the sale of plots of land for building, in districts in which houses are much required, but in which there is a strong disinclination to take building leases. There seems to be no reason why the Chancellor and Council should not pursue the same course in the future.

    Depredations by Turkish Brigands— Payment of Compensation.
    MR. YOXALL: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has now obtained from the Turkish Government the amounts claimed by British-Indian subjects robbed by brigands on the highway between Jeddah and Mecca in the years 1889 to 1902; and whether His Majesty's Government will confer with the Netherlands Government as to the measures to be taken for the protection of the Mahommedan, Dutch, and British subjects who are this year preparing to visit the shrines at Mecca and Medina on their journey between Jeddah and those places.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) As stated in this House by my predecessor, in reply to a Question on the 18th of March last,† the claims of British-Indian pilgrims for losses by robbery in the Hedjaz, between 1892 and 1898, have been settled. His Majesty's Government have not, since that date, received any further information in regard to such claims. His Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople will be requested to inquire into the matter, and to report whether, in his opinion, there is any necessity for the adoption of measures such as those suggested in the last paragraph of the Question.

    Irish National School Assistant Teachers.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in conformity with the undertaking given last session, he will direct the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland to have the average reduced from sixty to fifty to qualify for an assistant in national schools; will he state the number of teachers in each of the new grades in which they have been recently placed;
    † See(4) Debates, cxix., 1102.

    971
    and whether it is the intention of the Commissioners in future to insist on the same standard of proficiency in all schools in order to qualify for the promotion of a teacher to a higher grade.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Respecting the first part of the Question, I must refer to my reply to the similar inquiry addressed to me on the 17th instant by the hon. Member for North Cork†. The following are the number of teachers as recognised in the different grades at present:—

    (A.) Principals.

    Grade.

    Men.

    Women

    I. (1)

    273

    216

    I. (2)

    429

    284

    II.

    1,435

    1,017

    III.

    2,467

    2,135

    (B.) Assistants.

    I. (1)

    17

    10

    I. (2)

    14

    18

    II.

    14

    28

    III.

    1,043

    2,635

    The inspectors are directed when furnishing reports on schools to take into consideration (a) the locality of the schools; (b) the condition of the school house and premises; (c) the equipment of the schools; (d) the teaching staff; and (e)the social condition, ages, &c, of the pupils, when forming an estimate of the work done in the schools. Subject to these conditions the inspectors are to use the words excellent, very good, good, fair, middling, or bad, to express their opinion on the schools they inspect.

    Exports of Sugar from British West Indies to the United Kingdom.
    SIR JOHN LENG: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonics whether he will state, in view of the operation of the Sugar Convention, whether the exports of sugar from the British West Indies to the United Kingdom have increased; and whether he has any official information showing that the position of the West Indian sugar growers is improved.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) The imports into the United Kingdom of sugar from the British West Indies,
    † See page 19.
    972
    including British Guiana and British Honduras, during the five months (September to January) since the Brussels Convention came into force have been 11,261 tons, as compared with 7,953 tons in the corresponding period a year earlier. As a matter of fact, therefore, there has been an increase in the exports of sugar to this country since the commencement of the Convention. A comparison of this nature can, however, be of no practical value until after the close of the crop season, which commenced at the beginning of this year; and even then it will be misleading unless allowance is made for the difference in the size of the crops of the years compared, for the effect of the treaty between the United States and Cuba, and also for the conditions affecting the Canadian market. As regards the second part of the Question, I have not, and am not likely, for some time to come, to have any official information showing any definite improvement in the position of the West Indian sugar planter resulting from the Convention. The existence of large surplus stocks of sugar in the home market necessarily retards the natural operation of the abolition of bounties, while the Cuban treaty has placed the British West Indian planter at a great disadvantage in the United States market.

    Gold commandeered from British Banks at Pretoria—Compensation to Shareholders.
    SIR JAMES HASLETT (Belfast, N.): To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if, in view of the loss to British shareholders in the four British banks in Pretoria by reason of the commandeering of gold by the then South African Government in 1900 to the amount of £255,000, he will reconsider his decision in the: matter.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) My predecessor considered this question on two separate occasions and decided against the claim of the banks. I have again thoroughly gone into the matter, and, while greatly regretting the loss sustained, have been unable to come to. any different conclusion.

    Repairs to H. M. S. "Buzzard."
    MR. JOHN BURNS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he could expedite the repairs to H.M.S. "Buzzard," so as to save members of the Naval Volunteer Reserve the time and trouble of going to the docks to drill.
    (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) Instructions have already been given for the completion of the refit of H.M.S. "Buzzard" by an early date, and I am afraid that no further action is possible in this direction without disorganising other very important work in progress in the dockyard.

    Re-boilering in the Navy.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will say on what vessels was re-boilering work commenced during the year 1903, and what vessels have the Admiralty decided to re-boiler in the near or immediate future.
    (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The following are the vessels on which re-boilering work was commenced during the year 1903:—Three torpedo gunboats ("Circe," "Leda," and "Halcyon"). One special service vessel ("Wildfire"). Fourteen first class torpedo boats. Boilers for subsidiary or instructional services were also fitted in "Invincible," "Nelson," "Northumberland," "Ariadne" (Old), and "Espiegle" (Old). The re-boilering of the following vessels will be undertaken during the coming financial year:—One special service vessel ("Magnet"). One tug ("Alligator"). Twenty-six first class torpedo boats. Boilers for subsidiary or instructional services will also be fitted in the following ships next financial year:—"Hector," "Warrior," "Triumph."

    Naval Repairs in Private Dockyards
    MR. RUNCIMAN: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will say what ships have been under repair in private dockyards throughout the year 1903.
    (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The following ships were undergoing refit in private
    974
    dockyards during the year 1903:—Pour battleships ("Colossus," "Howe," "Canopus," "Glory"). Six first class cruisers ("Niobe," "Crescent," "St. George," "Aurora," "Terrible," "Endymion"). Two second class cruisers ("Hermes," "Astraea"). Two third class cruisers ("Pelorus," "Psyche"). Three gunboats ("Jason," "Leda," "Circe"). Six destroyers ("Dove," "Leopard," "Spitfire," "Teazer," "Flirt," "Wizard"). Two gunvessels ("Hecla," "Halcyon"). Bight torpedo boats. In addition to the above, several ships were sent to private firms for small repairs during the year.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    2nd Battalion Devonshire Regiment.
    SIR JOHN KENNAWAY (Devonshire, Honiton): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if the 2nd Battalion Devonshire Regiment are to be quartered in huts on Crown Hill, and not in Raglan Barracks, on their arrival in Devonport.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): In July last my right hon. friend the Postmaster-General expressed a hope that it would be possible to quarter a battalion of the Devonshire Regiment in its own county. An opportunity of giving effect to this intention has now arisen, and the 2nd Battalion Devonshire Regiment will be quartered in Devon-port. The question of what particular barracks shall be assigned to the Battalion is one for the decision of the Field Marshal commanding the 2nd Army Corps.

    Drafts for India.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state whether soldiers enlisted for three years are now being sent to India in the hope of their re-engaging; and whether, in the event of their not doing so, the cost of their passage home will be made a charge on the British taxpayer; what the cost per head of such men will be to England and India respectively in the event of their not re-engaging; and whether the policy of sending such

    975
    men to India has received the sanction of the Indian military authorities.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: A certain number of men who have not extended are being sent to India. Should they not extend in India the extra cost of passage will fall on the Home Government. The relative extra cost depends on the period during which they serve in India, but the precise adjustment has not yet been settled. The policy of sending such men to India, under present circumstances, has received the assent of the Indian Government.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the number of these men?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No, Sir, it varies from day to day.

    Ordnance Factories.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the desirability of bringing to the notice of the Army Council the expenditure caused by the creation of a Central Office at the Ordnance Factories, and the increase of the emoluments of the civil staff, resulting in an increased annual charge of £60,000; and whether he will consider the desirability of placing under the control of the Master-General of the Ordnance the entire staff employed in the Ordnance Factories.
    MR. ABNOLD-FORSTER: The creation of the Central Office at the Ordnance Factories, which took place in 1889, has thrown no increased charge upon the public, but has led to substantial economies. I do not understand the figures quoted by the hon. and gallant Member. The entire staff of the Ordnance Factories has been for the past five years under the control of the Director-General of Ordnance; and the question of their future control is included in the consideration of the War Office Reorganisation Committee, who have not yet reported upon this point.

    Imperial Yeomanry.
    MR. DUNCAN (Yorkshire, W.R., Otley): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state
    976
    what number of Imperial Yeomanry, who went out to South Africa during the war, took their discharge there with the intention of settling in the country.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The number was 2,638.

    Donegal Militia.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is the intention of the General Commanding the district that the recruits of the 5th Battalion of the Royal Innis-killing Fusiliers (the Donegals) shall be this year called up for preliminary training at Omagh instead of at Bally-shannon, the headquarters of the battalion; will he state whether the recruits of this regiment have on any occasion hitherto been trained at Omagh; whether separation and other allowances will be made to the members of the permanent staff brought away from their families to Omagh; whether he is aware that the recruits during training will be deprived of the use of the rifle range at Finner, Ballyshannon; and will he say whether he has received any representations from the people] of Ballyshannon on the subject.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The recruits of this battalion are to do their preliminary drill at Omagh. From the records of the last thirty years it does not appear that the recruits have on any previous occasion trained at Omagh. Separation and other usual allowances will be granted. Musketry, both for recruits and trained militiamen, will take place at Finner Camp. A memorial on this subject was received in the War Office two days ago from the Town Commissioners at Ballyshannon, and is being dealt with.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Why has this transfer of the place of training been insisted on?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: It is a matter within the discretion of the Field Marshal Commanding in Ireland to be decided on purely military grounds, and I am not prepared to interfere.

    Transvaal Labour Ordinance—Regulations for Women and Children.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the women and children who may accompany Chinese coolies indentured under the Ordinance to work in South Africa, will be under the same proscriptions as to residence in a particular place, and as to leave of absence being granted only for forty-eight hours by special licence, as the coolies themselves; and, if so, whether the women and children will be subject to the same penalties as the coolies themselves for breach of the regulations.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,): The Ordinance contemplates the application of the same conditions and restrictions to a wife or any member of the family of a labourer as far as practicable. The means for carrying out such conditions is a matter for regulations under the Ordinance.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what will become in South Africa of the children male and female of coolies, indentured under the Ordinance for work in the South African mines, when they reach their sixteenth birthday.
    MR. LYTTELTON: This matter is receiving consideration.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can say when he will be in a position to lay upon the Table the Chinese Labour Ordinance and Regulations in their first complete and operative form.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I am notable to name a date.
    DR. MACNAMARA: Will there beany long delay?
    MR. LYTTELTON: No.
    MR. HERBERTSAMUEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the regulations will be
    978
    laid on the Table before any Chinese are recruited?
    [No answer was returned.]

    Transvaal Labour Ordinance—More Papers Promised.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any communications respecting the Chinese Labour Ordinance were despatched either to Lord Milner or to the Lieutenant-Governor of the Transvaal subsequent to the debate on the Amendment to the Address dealing with the introduction of indentured Chinese labour into the Transvaal; and, if so, whether he will lay upon the Table copies of the communications.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I have been in communication with Lord Milner since the debate and propose shortly to lay further Papers.

    British Indians and the Transvaal Ordinance.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, before the Third Reading of the Transvaal Ordinance was taken, there were communications between the Home Government and the Transvaal Government as to the retention of Clause 34 that relates to British-Indians; and whether the retention of that clause in the Ordinance was sanctioned by the Home Government and the Indian Government.
    MR LYTTELTON: The answer is in the affirmative. Lord Milner was informed by me on behalf of His Majesty's Government that the clause should be regarded as a temporary provision, and the India Office has not raised objection to its retention as a temporary measure.

    Chinese Passengers Act.
    SIR JOHN GORST: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government will direct the Governor of Hong-Kong to revise and alter, under the provisions of Section 3 of the Chinese Passengers Act, 1852, Schedule A of that Act, and in particular whether more modern drugs will be substituted for the

    979
    calomel, jalap, blue pill, and Epsom salts, prescribed for the Chinese under that schedule.
    MR. LYTTELTON: The-Hong-Kong Ordinance 1. of 1889 repeals the drastic and somewhat antiquated schedule, and requires the provision of suitable medicines and medical stores to the satisfaction of the emigration officer, who by the Ordinance is empowered to take the advice of a medical expert.

    Hours of Labour in the Transvaal Mines.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the regulations to be promulgated under the Transvaal Labour Ordinance will provide for a fixed maximum number of days labour in the year, and for a fixed maximum number of hours of work per day for each indentured labourer; and whether they will set out the rates of wages to be paid.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I am communicating with Lord Milner on the subjects in the hon. Member's Question. The mining regulations already in force strictly limit Sunday labour. In addition to the British officer appointed by Government to supervise the emigration from China the Chinese Government propose to appoint a Chinese Protector of Emigrants whose duty, among other things, will be to safeguard the interests of Chinese subjects in regard to wages and all other incidents of his contract.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: May I ask whether there is any Labour Ordinance in force in any other British colony in which the limitation of hours and the question of wages is not specifically stated in the Ordinance itself?
    MR. LYTTELTON: I must have notice of that Question. There are more than 150 Ordinances.

    Indian Coolie Labour.
    SIR JOHN GORST: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the correspondence between
    980
    the High Commissioner of South Africa and the Government of India relative to the importation of Indian coolie labour into the Transvaal.
    MR. LYTTELTON: The correspondence on this subject is not yet complete. It is therefore not proposed to lay it at present.

    Postal Espionage in the Transvaal
    MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the power referred to by his predecessor on the 29th April, 1903, of intercepting and opening letters, documents, and parcels in the Transvaal, has been exercised during the last six months; and, if so, in how many instances; and has the proposed amendment of the Ordinance relating to this power been carried out.
    MR. LYTTELTON: The power in question has not been exercised during the last six months in any instance. The Ordinance has not yet been amended.

    Russia and Germany and the Bagdad Railway.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs have His Majesty's Government any information that negotiations have recently been begun and are now proceeding between the German and the Russian Governments for an arrangement whereby, in return for certain advantages afforded to Russia by Germany, during the hostilities with Japan, Russia will give support to Germany in respect of the construction of the Bagdad railway and of the general extension of German predominance in Asia Minor.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,): The answer is in the negative.

    Chinese Ambassador's Letter on the Transvaal Labour Ordinance.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can say why the letter in reference to Chinese labour in South Africa from the Chinese Ambassador, which was written on the 12th

    981
    February, was only presented to Members in a Parliamentary Paper on the 18th February, the day after the debate on Chinese labour.
    EARL PERCY: The publication of the note of the 12th February from the Chinese Minister was delayed in order that the letter from the Colonial Office, of the 15th, should be laid at the same time. One hundred copies of the Parliamentary Paper were sent to the House of Commons on the 16th, and the remaining copies were delivered at the Vote Office at mid-day on the 17th.

    Rescued Russian Sailors in Ceylon.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies has he instructed the Colonial authorities at Colombo to detain in Ceylon the 325 Russian sailors rescued from the naval action at Chemulpo; and, if so, will he state by virtue of what authority His Majesty's Government propose to detain these men; will they be treated in the same way as prisoners of war, and how will their detention be enforced.
    EARL PERCY: The sailors in question took refuge on board a British man-of-war at Chemulpo. In these circumstances, should no other arrangement be arrived at by mutual consent between the combatants, His Majesty's Government believe that they would best fulfil the obligations of a neutral Power by interning these men in British territory until the conclusion of the war. The Japanese Government have, however, intimated that they are willing that the men should be allowed to return to Russia on their giving their parole that they will take no further part in the war. His Majesty's Government are in correspondence with the Russian Government as to the possibility of disposing of the matter upon this basis.

    Suez Canal Convention.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs can he explain in what way the Suez Canal Convention of October, 1888, is held by His Majesty's Government capable of being invalidated or hindered in its operation by reserves made by His Majesty's Government in
    982
    1885, three years previous to the signature and ratification of that Convention, or by the renewal of those reserves in 1887, one year before its signature and ratification; have the other Powers concerned accepted the claim of His Majesty's Government to override a Convention by reserves previously made, or expressed their views thereon; and, if so, can the Papers embodying those views be laid upon the Table; do His Majesty's Government hold themselves entitled to adopt, or to assent to, the adoption by the Egyptian Government, for the Suez Canal in time of war, rules and regulations inconsistent with the Convention of 1888; and are the regulations issued by the Egyptian Government on the 10th instant consistent therewith.
    EARL PERCY: The Convention was signed and ratified by His Majesty's Government subject to the reservations already made by them. In view of these reservations the other Signatory Powers have abstained from any steps for the purpose of bringing the Convention into active operation. There are no Papers on the subject that can be presented to Parliament. His Majesty's Government have no intention of adopting or assenting to the adoption of rules inconsistent with the general principles laid down in the Convention with regard to the navigation of the Canal in time of war, and the rules recently issued are in entire agreement with those principles.

    The Zionists.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will lay upon the Table of the House the conditions under which a concession of land was offered the Zionists last year; if he will state the extent of such concession, and where situate; and if the offer is still open.
    EARL PERCY: I will consider what Papers can be laid. The precise extent and situation of the area offered to the Zionists and the character of the local autonomy to be exercised by them has not yet been finally determined. The answer to the last paragraph of the Question is in the affirmative.

    East Africa—Land Concession and Native Reserves.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will lay upon the Table of the House all reports from local officers on the question of land concession and native reserves in East Africa.
    EARL PERCY: The opinions and suggestions of local officers in regard to questions of land concession and native reserves formed the basis of the Crown Lands Ordinance, 1902, and of the various rules and notices which have been issued in connection therewith. These regulations have all been published, and His Majesty's Government do not propose to lay any Papers on the subject.

    Cotton Planting in Central Africa-Scarcity of Labour.
    MR. CHARLES McARTHUR: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that cotton planting in Central Africa is being retarded by the scarcity of labour; and whether, having regard to the importance of encouraging the growth of cotton within the British Empire, he will reconsider the sanction given by him to the recruiting in the British Central African Protectorate of 5,000 natives for the Transvaal mines.
    EARL PERCY: The reports received from our officials in British Central Africa do not indicate that there is any scarcity of labour. His Majesty's Government therefore see no reason to reconsider the sanction which they have given to additional recruitment for the Transvaal mines.

    Cost of the London Telephone System.
    MR. JOHN CAMPBELL (Armagh, S.): I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he can state the amount expended on the new telephone system; whether that system is now completed; and, if not, will he explain why hundreds of men, many with a record of long service, have been discharged.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,): The expenditure on the London
    984
    Telephone Exchange System amounted to £1,495,602 on the 31st December last. The system is not complete. Its extension is dependent on the provision of further funds by Parliament, and I hope shortly to move a Resolution for leave to introduce a Bill to provide additional capital for this purpose. It has been necessary to restrict the expenditure on telephone works in London, and to reduce the number of workmen employed, in order to avoid exceeding the expenditure authorised by Parliament. If, as I hope, further expenditure is authorised at an early date, the works will be pressed forward as rapidly as possible.

    Central Telegraph Office—Women Season Substitutes.
    MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that certain women season substitutes in the Central Telegraph Office, London, have been informed that their services are to be discontinued, and that some of these telegraphists have been employed for a number of years in this department, and have proved themselves efficient during this period, he can take steps to retain their services.
    LORD STANLEY: The services of most of the women season substitutes in the Central Telegraph Office have been retained up to the present, and so far as they can be usefully employed their services will be continued, but, owing to the diminution of telegraph work in that office, it is doubtful whether this course can be justified much longer.

    Post Office—Holloway Instrument Factory.
    MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he will explain why mechanics and learners have been discharged from the Holloway Instrument Factory during the past two years owing to alleged slackness of work, seeing that the factory and also the old Parkhurst Theatre are at present full of instruments made by a Swedish firm.
    LORD STANLEY: The factory at Holloway is primarily a factory for repairs, although some of the more delicate instruments, such as the Wheatstone,

    985
    are made there. The instruments to which the hon. Member refers would not in any case be made at this factory. The discharge of workmen depends on fluctuations in the work. As a matter of fact, the total number is now about fifty more than it was two years ago.
    MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: Cannot the instruments be made in London?
    LORD STANLEY: All that we require cannot be made in England. We get all we can at home, but have to go abroad for the rest. There are certain instruments we require which are the property of patentees in foreign countries, and which can only be obtained in those countries.

    Whisky Adulteration.
    MR. KILBRIDE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will cause instructions to be issued by the Joint Boards of Customs and Inland Revenue for permits attached to all blends leaving bond to truthfully describe the composition of such blends, whether in cask or in bottle, with a view to letting the public know what they are consuming.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH, Derbyshire, W.): No, Sir; the Revenue authorities cannot undertake to do more than prohibit the use of any labels implying a Government guarantee of accuracy.
    MR. KILBRIDE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the character of the frauds which are perpetrated in bond? Is he satisfied to connive at these frauds?
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I must ask for notice of any further Questions.

    Ventilation of the House of Commons.
    MR. FREDERICK WILSON: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he can state what changes have recently been made in the ventilation and cleaning of the House of Commons, and what further
    986
    alterations of system are proposed to ensure the better health of Members.
    LORD BALCARRES: I have to invite the attention of the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. friend the Member for Dumbartonshire on the 5th instant. † I may add that the cleaning arrangements affecting the Chamber have been placed under a single control. Experiments are being continued for testing the atmosphere of the Chamber as regards the presence of bacteria. Besides more frequent cleaning of the matting on the floor, disinfection will be daily applied.

    Hyde Park.
    MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he will state what is the object of the construction of earth and shrubs in Hyde Park, near to the Magazine, which has abstracted half or a whole acre from the amenities enjoyed by the public; is there any intention to cut a road from Buckingham Palace to Piccadilly through the Green Park; and, if so, by whose authority is it to be done, and is it too late to be countermanded.
    LORD BALCARRES: In regard to the first part of the Question, I have to refer the hon. Member to the Answer given to my hon. friend the Member for Stoke on Monday last.† The reply to the latter part is in the negative.

    Voluntary Schools—Repairs of Fabric.
    MR. ASHTON:I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether, as those managers of a voluntary school who are appointed by the local authorities are personally liable for the repairs of the fabric of the schools equally with the foundation managers, and as there is no way by which they can avoid this liability except by refusing their consent to repairs, he will take steps to amend the Education Act of 1902, by relieving the managers appointed by local authorities from liability.
    † See (4) Debates, cxxix., 473.
    ‡See page 536.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,): The hon. Member's Question is based on a misapprehension. No manager is personally liable for the cost of repairs to the fabric unless he makes himself so by becoming a party to a contract. Managers appointed by local authorities need have no difficulty in renouncing from the outset any liability for the cost of these repairs: the foundation managers could not then be regarded as their agents to commit them to any such liability. There is no reason why local authority managers should not, under these conditions, agree to the necessity for repairs without incurring personal liability for the expenditure.
    MR. ASHTON: Are they held liable unless they gave notice to the effect that they are not liable?
    SIR WILLIAM ANSON: It is easy for them to give notice through the public Press, and to have their renunciation recorded on the minutes of the managers' meetings.

    Scottish Schools—Precautions against Fire.
    MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, whether, in view of recent fires in schools, the Education Department is enjoining on school boards the necessity of precautions against fire; and whether they have considered the advisability of fire drill for the children.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON,): The Department is convinced that school boards generally are fully alive to the necessity of precautions against fire. It is one of the points most carefully considered in connection with the approval of school plans. Whether fire drill is possible is a question which school managers must decide; but no school would be considered to be efficiently organised in which the orderly and expeditious clearing of classrooms upon a given signal was not regularly practised.

    Irish Law Clerkships.
    MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland, as representing the Lord Chancellor, whether, in view of the fact that the system of competitive examination for the position of clerks in the King's Bench and other Divisions of His Majesty's Courts in Ireland is not in practice, and that recently a retired army officer on pension was appointed to a clerkship without passing any competitive examination, he will say on whose recommendation this officer was appointed, and if he will take steps to secure that in all future appointments a public competitive examination for these positions shall take place.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. Save where expressly excepted by statute the senior clerkships in the different Divisions of the High Court of Justice in Ireland are filled by competition, and that rule has not been departed from. Recently, however, a clerk in the King's Bench Division was selected for transfer to another Department, and pending his passing the examination for the latter office he was given leave of absence without salary. Thereupon a supernumerary writing clerk, already attached to the King's Bench Division, who appears to be a retired officer of His Majesty's Forces, was, by the President of the Division, acting under one of the Rules of Court, required to discharge temporarily the duties of the absent clerk. This is probably the case referred to. Should the transfer be completed the clerkship thereby rendered vacant in the King's Bench Division will be filled up in the ordinary way by open competition.
    MR. NANNETTI: Am I to take it, then, that this officer is temporarily employed and will not remain permanently in this position?
    MR. ATKINSON: He cannot be made permanent until he is qualified by statute.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: Who has the power of nomination in this case?
    MR. ATKINSON: I have answered the Question.

    Ennistymon Workhouse Clothing Contract.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a resolution passed by the Ennistymon guardians in which it is asked by what authority Sergeants Coyne, Brennan, and Breden of the Royal Irish Constabulary questioned members of the clothing committee as to their reasons for rejecting clothing supplied by a contractor to the workhouse; and whether he will say by what authority the police acted in this matter.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The three sergeants named discussed this matter, which excited local interest, with some members of the clothing committee in the course of casual conversation. No inquiry was made, or directed to be made.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Had the police any power to interfere with the discretion of this committee?
    MR. WYNDHAM: No. Persons occupying official positions should be discreet in any action they take, but you cannot always secure that.

    Labourers' Cottage Schemes in County Limerick.
    MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that John Shanahan, of Boskill, Cahirconlish, county Limerick, at the inquiry in Limerick No. 1 District Council on the 7th Scheme under the Labourers Acts was unsuccessful in obtaining an additional half acre by reason of the fact that he had left his cottage for some months but with his sister in charge of it; and whether, seeing that he returned after those few months, can he arrange that Shanahan may obtain the additional half acre which is situated on Mrs. Minchin's grass lands amounting to 230 acres.
    MR. WYNDHAM: There is no ower now to authorise the acquisition of an additional allotment in this case, the Provisional Order having been made absolute. It will be open, however, to the district council when formulating a fresh scheme to renew the proposal in this respect.

    Doonbeg Disturbances.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will explain why the police under charge of the county inspector whilst attending near Doonbeg, county Clare, on the 11th inst., to prevent a breach of the peace between the owners of land and employees of the railway company, whom the former believed to be illegally interfering with their property, identified themselves with one of the parties to the dispute, and with force drove back the people from the assertion by lawful means of what they are advised to be their legal rights.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The farmers on the occasion mentioned assembled with pitchforks, sticks, and stones, and their attitude was violent and threatening. The assertion of a civil right, even if it existed, in such a manner was illegal and could not be permitted with any regard to the preservation of the public peace, No force was used by the police in restraining the crowd.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask whether, suppose I propose to do something illegal, you will send a police force to prevent any one interfering with me.
    MR. WYNDHAM: It depends entirely on the circumstances.
    MR. FLAVIN: Had not the farmers a perfect right to assemble on their own land to prevent trespass?
    [No answer was returned.]

    Irish Court of Chancery.
    MR. P. A. McHUGH (Leitrim, N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that the Vice-Chancellor

    991
    of the Chancery Court in Ireland has recently retired and that his place has been filled by the transfer of Mr. Justice Barton from the King's Bench Division, he will say whether any saving has been thus effected, and, if so, how much; and whether the Government intend to fill up the vacancy.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The annual saving effected by the transfer of Mr. Justice Barton will amount to £867. It is not proposed to fill the vacancy in the Judgeship of the King's Bench Division.

    Irish Judges of Assize.
    MR. P. A. McHUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is proposed by the Irish Executive to amalgamate the Con-naught and North-West Circuits to enable the number of Judges of the High Court to be still further reduced when vacancies occur.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I would prefer not to go into this matter, and I must refer the hon. Member to the reply already given.

    St. Stephen's Green Parliamentary Vacancy.
    MR. P. A. McHUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Crown Solicitor for Carlow has been selected as Unionist candidate for the St. Stephen's Green Division of Dublin; if so, will he state whether there is any authority in Ireland whose duty it is to prevent public officials connected with the administration of the Law from taking part in Party politics; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I understand that Mr. Goddard, though invited to stand as candidate, has not accepted the invitation.

    Porter and Cross be Estate, County Tyrone.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can ate when the Porter and Cross be Estate, county Tyrone, first went into
    992
    the Land Judge's Court; whether the tenants were served with notice of sale in 1898, and if he is aware that whilst sale is pending a portion of the tenantry cannot get second-term rents fixed and are paying the old rent, and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I have no specific information on the matters mentioned in the Question. The sale of the property under the Act of 1896 presented many difficulties owing to complications in the title. But negotiations are now pending with the Estates Commissioners with a view to the sale of the estate under Section 7 of the Act of last year.

    Labourers Acts.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state what objection there is to publishing the reports of the inspectors who have recently been inquiring into the working of the Labourers Acts in Ireland.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The reports were made for the private information of the Local Government Board to supplement information already in its possession. It would be contrary to established practice to publish such reports, which are regarded as confidential.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: In view of the approaching introduction of the Labourers Bill, is there any objection to publishing a summary of these reports?
    MR. WYNDHAM: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman had better wait until he has heard what I say in introducing the Bill.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: When will it be introduced?
    MR. WYNDHAM: At the earliest possible opportunity.

    Education Inquiry in Ireland.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the inquiry into primary and intermediate education in Ireland has yet concluded: and whether

    993
    he intends to lay the reports of the inspector upon the Table of the House, and when.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The inquiry conducted by Mr. Dale into primary education has concluded, and his report, which was received by the Government on the 21st ultimo, will be laid on the Table in the course of a few day. The inquiry into the subject of intermediate education has not yet been undertaken.

    Arklow Harbour.
    MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Wicklow, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that the harbour at Arklow was constructed by the Irish Board of Works on a plan condemned and protested against at the time of construction by the people of the locality, and that the plan has now been proved to have been faulty, and the harbour has become useless, with the result that the important industries of the town, namely, the Cordite Factory of Messrs. Kynoch and the Parnell Quarries, are threatened with extinction, the Board of Works will be directed to put the harbour into a safe condition without expense to the locality, which is in no way responsible for the defective plans.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The plans were opposed by some persons in the locality and supported by others. They were approved by two independent engineers of the highest eminence, whose report was presented to Parliament in 1886. The liability for the. maintenance of the harbour is vested in the Harbour Commissioners.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: But were not the plans condemned by the local public bodies in the locality?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I am unable to say.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: I will put another Question down.

    Police Evidence at Ballinrobe Sessions.
    MR. JOHN O'DONNELL (Mayo, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-
    994
    Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the evidence given by two policemen against a publican named Faby, at the Ballinrobe Petty Sessions, quite recently, who was charged with a breach of the Licensing Acts, when the magistrates, having a doubt about the case, left the bench and proceeded to the spot; that on their return they declared it was impossible for the police to have seen what they swore to, and unanimously dismissed the case; and, if so, whether, in view of these facts, he will order a prosecution for perjury to be instituted forthwith.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I have received this morning reports of the proceedings in the case referred to. These reports are now under consideration, and if the hon. Member will postpone his Question until Monday, I shall then be in a position to announce the decision of the Government in the matter.

    Irish Estates Commissioners' Clerks.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland the number and status of the clerks at the disposal of the Estates Commissioners; and if it is the intention of the Government to carry on the work of the Department in the seven-roomed house now occupied by the Commission.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The indoor establishment consists of a secretary, an assistant-secretary, and two assistant examiners; two first-class clerks, three second-class clerks, seven second division clerks, nine third-class clerks, and eight temporary clerks. There has been some unavoidable difficulty in providing sufficient accommodation, but arrangements have now been made for placing two houses at the early disposal of the Commissioners, Nos. 25 and 26, Upper Merrion Street.
    MR. KILBRIDE: Have they been merely nominated?
    MR. DELANY: And are they all land agents?
    [No answer was returned.]

    Housing of the Irish Working Classes.
    MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the petition from the United Irish Trades Congress, presented to this House on the 23rd February, 1904, in which housing legislation for the working classes in Ireland is called for, owing to the conditions under which many of these people are compelled to exist; and whether, in his proposed Labourers Bill, he purposes to deal with the suggestions set out in the petition, or whether he proposes to deal in a separate measure with the housing of the working classes in cities and towns in Ireland.
    MR. WYNDHAM: As at present advised it is my intention to deal with the housing of the working classes in towns in a separate measure. The petition will be considered.

    Labourers' Cottage Schemes for Strabane.
    MR. HEMPHILL (Tyrone, N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the necessity for labourers' cottages in the electoral division of Ballymagorry, near Strabane, in the county of Tyrone, and to the correspondence with the Local Government Board, Ireland, relating thereto; and whether he will take steps to extend to that district the benefits of the Labourers Acts.
    MR. WYNDHAM: A memorial on the subject was recently received, and the Local Government Board is in correspondence with the District Council. The erection of three cottages in this division was sanctioned by the Board in July last.

    Lough Erne Navigation.
    MR. EDWARD MITCHELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if there is any fund under the Department of Agriculture for Ireland or from any other source by which the inland navigation of Lough Erne, situate in the counties of Fermanagh and Cavan, could be subsidised and developed; and, if so, will he state what action the
    996
    Department proposes to take in the matter.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The aiding or facilitating the carriage and distribution of produce comes within the purposes of the Agricultural and Technical Instruction Act, 1899. The Department will consider any definite representations that may be made to it in this connection in respect of the inland navigation of Lough Erne.

    Irish Drainage and Land Improvement
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the resolution of the Clare County Council, which asks that a Bill should be introduced in the current session of Parliament which will empower county councils to carry out drainage works and land impovements in their respective counties, and provide means by way of which loans at a rate of interest similar to that provided for in the recent Irish Land Bill can be made to county councils; and whether this matter will be considered by the Government at an early date.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The resolution has been received. The matter is under consideration, but I cannot undertake to introduce legislation in the present session.

    Small Dwellings Acquisition Act (Ireland).
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY (Limerick, W.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will grant the Return standing on to-day's Notice Paper in reference to The Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, 1899.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir; the Return will be granted.
    The following is the Return referred to—Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, 1899, (Ireland). Return giving the names of the local authorities in Ireland that have put into operation The Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, 1899; the number of applicants to whom money has been advanced by each such authority for the purpose of acquiring ownership of their

    997
    houses under the Act; the amounts of the advance in each case; and the rate of interest charged to applicants on the loan.

    Londonderry Town Clerk.
    MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state under what Statutes and on what statement of facts, as to age and length of service and otherwise, was the sanction of the Lord-Lieutenant given to a retiring allowance to the present town clerk of the county borough of Londonderry on his proposed retirement in April next, and by whom the statement was submitted; whether the Lord-Lieutenant will receive from the ratepayers of the borough a memorial on the law and facts of the case, and if satisfied that the town clerk is not entitled to a retiring allowance, would he reconsider his consent so given; and, will he explain why was this information denied to a member of the corporation by the Local Government Board.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The proposal to grant a retiring allowance to the town clerk of Londonderry was made by the Corporation of that city at meetings held in May and August last. The Lord-Lieutenant's sanction to the allowance was given in pursuance of the Local Officers Superannuation Act, 1869, on the understanding that the town clerk's retirement would not take effect before next April, when he will have attained the age of sixty years. The Lord-Lieutenant acted upon a statement signed by the Mayor of Derry. The Local Government Board is not aware that there is any foundation for the suggestion at the end of the Question. I cannot undertake that the Lord-Lieutenant will re-open the case, but any representations that may be made to him in the matter will be considered.
    MR. MURPHY: Is it not the fact that according to law any officer filling a position such as that of town clerk, who performs other duties, is not entitled to superannuation. Has not the town clerk of Derry notoriously filled other offices, and has he not obtained superannuation
    998
    simply because a member of the Government represents Derry City in this House.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

    Subsidies to Irish Tourist Traffic.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will reconsider the decision to withdraw the Government subsidy in connection with the tourist traffic between Kilrush and Tarbert, and also the coach services in Clare and Kerry; and if he can state what the amount of this subsidy is.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The receipts in the case of the Tarbert to Kilrush steamer service to the 31st of December last amounted to £535, and the expenditure to £4,253. In the case of the two coach services the receipts were £1,480, and the expenditure £7,338. The subsidy allocated to the two coach services amounted to £8,848, and to the steamer service £5,208. I am afraid I cannot hold out any hope that the Government will reconsider the decision already come to.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman postpone altering these subsidies until the new transit scheme has developed?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I am afraid that my answer to that must be in the negative. The Act of 1896 was an experimental Act to try certain routes, and, where it has been proved that the losses are so great, it seems better not to exhaust the surplus on a service which is doomed to failure, and surely it would be preferable to allot it to more favourable schemes.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: But could not something be done by altering the route?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member must give notice of that.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: But in view of the fact that these routes——
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The Question on the Paper has been fully answered.
    MR. FLAVIN: May I ask——
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I shall call attention to this matter later on.
    MR. FLAVIN: I am a representative of the district through which this service runs. Am I not entitled to ask a Question?
    MR. SPEAKER: The Question on the Paper has been answered fully.
    MR. FLAVIN: Then I give notice that I will put down a Question for Monday.

    Irish Labourers' Cottages.
    MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a resolution from the Millstreet Rural District Council urging that a clause should be inserted in the Labourers Bill entitling the occupiers of labourers' cottages erected under the Land Commission Acts to an additional half acre of land; and, if so, whether, in view of the benefits that would be conferred by such an extension of existing legislation, he will insert a provision such as indicated.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The resolution referred to will be considered.

    Preparation of Voters' Lists.
    MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received from the Millstreet Union a resolution calling upon the Government to repeal Section 83 (7) of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, so as to transfer to clerks of unions the duties of preparing the jurors' and voters' lists, with a view to curtail the higher fees involved by their preparation by the secretaries of county councils, and, in view of the fact that clerks of unions possess the local knowledge which is requisite in making out correct lists, will he state what steps he
    1000
    proposes to take in connection with this resolution.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The resolution has been received. It is not proposed to repeal the enactment in question, under which the duty of preparing these lists was transferred to the secretaries of county councils.

    Captain Annesly's Estate.
    MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the estate of the representatives of the late Captain Annesly, situated at and near Island, Ballyhaunis, county Mayo, has been offered to the Congested Districts Board for sale, and that an offer has been made by that Board; and whether, if there is any material difference between the demand and offer, he will advise the Congested Districts Board to make a further offer with a view to purchasing the estate for the purpose of enlarging holdings in that district.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I have not yet completed my inquiries in respect of this estate, and will ask the hon. Member to repeat the Question on Monday next.

    Taafe Estate, County Mayo.
    MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that last November the Congested Districts Board made an offer for the Taafe Estate, near Ballyhaunis, in the county of Mayo, which offer has not yet been brought definitely before the Land Judge's Court in which that estate now is; and that the tenants have repeatedly offered to purchase it during the last thirty years and take it out of that Court; and, if so, whether he will take immediate steps to have this sale completed.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Negotiations for the sale of this estate are pending between the solicitors having carriage of the proceedings and the Congested Districts Board. When these have been satisfactorily settled an offer will be made by the Board in the Land Judge's Court.

    O'Grady Estate, County Mayo.
    MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Congested Districts Board made an offer some time ago for the O'Grady estate, on which stands a portion of the town of Ballyhaunis, county Mayo, and that the Receiver on the estate refused that offer on the ground that it would deprive the graziers, who held portions of it on the eleven months' system, of their privileges in keeping large areas under; grass; and whether, seeing that this Receiver has stated that he will not sell to the Board so as to prevent the enlargement of holdings, he will have full inquiries made into this case.
    MR. WYNDHAM: No offer has been made by the Congested Districts Board for the purchase of the O'Grady estate. In 1902 the question was considered by the Board, but no action was taken, as it was understood that the owner and the tenants contemplated a sale through the Land Commission. I am unable to say whether the Receiver acted in the manner alleged, but in any case it would be outside his province either to accept or reject such an offer, if made.

    National Expenditure.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, can he now say what decision His Majesty's Government have arrived at with reference to the recommendations of the Select Committee on National Expenditure that an Estimates Committee should be appointed, at the beginning of each session, for examination of and report on one class of the Estimates precedent to their discussion in Committee of Supply, and that a day should be provided for the consideration by this House of the Reports of the Public Accounts Committee, and an opportunity be given of taking a decision upon the recommendations embodied therein.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The matter to which my hon. friend refers has been under the consideration of the Government, and a good many Questions upon
    1002
    it have been postponed till Monday. If my hon. friend will postpone his Question till next Tuesday, and if the other Questions are postponed till the same day, I shall hope to make a statement in answer to them all.

    Dublin Post Office—Promotions to the Clerks' Class.
    MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he can explain why from one hundred and thirteen to one hundred and seventy-nine men were passed over in the recent promotions to the clerks' class in the Dublin Post Office; can he say what were the special qualifications of the selected men; and why the claims of officers, who had been acting as clerks for a considerable length of time and who had long service and excellent records, were overlooked.
    LORD STANLEY: The officers referred to were not promoted because they could not be certified to be the best qualified for the duties of supervision and control devolving on the class of clerks. The claims of all eligible officers were considered, whether they had temporarily acted as clerks or not, and I am satisfied that the officers selected were those best fitted for promotion.
    MR. NANNETTI: Do they have to pass a competitive examination before getting promotion?
    LORD STANLEY: Each case is decided by myself after seeing the officer's record.
    MR. NANNETTI: Have you done away with the examination altogether?
    [No answer was returned.]

    Dublin Post Office—Assistant Superintendent.
    MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he will explain why a junior clerk was recently promoted to the rank of first class assistant superintendent in Dublin over the heads of those senior to him on the clerks' class and over the second class assistant superintendents, seeing that the promoted officer has practically no experience of

    1003
    the Dublin Office and has seldom performed supervising duties there.
    LORD STANLEY: None of the officers on the second class of assistant superintendents in the Dublin sorting office could be certified to possess the qualifications necessary for promotion to the more important post of first class assistant superintendent. I selected an officer who was not only exceptionally well fitted for promotion, but better qualified then any of those who stood above him. This officer had long experience, although a comparatively short part of his service was in the Dublin Office; and I am satisfied that his promotion was fully justified in the interest of the public service.

    Dublin Post Office—Leave Arrangements.
    MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that dissatisfaction exists in the Dublin sorting office with reference to the annual leave arrangements for the coming year by which large batches are listed for leave in March, April, and October, and comparatively few in the summer months; and whether, in view of the practice of the Department to allow an equal number out in each term of leave as is the case in the telegraph branch in Dublin, and of the fact that although a memorial from the staff was presented to the Controller, the leave is being rearranged on practically the same plan as the original one which has been withdrawn, he will take steps to provide a system of annual leave distributed equally over the summer months.
    LORD STANLEY: The circumstances to which the hon. Member refers have not been brought before me; but I will make inquiry.

    Armagh Post Office—Staff Arrangements.
    MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the male staff at Armagh Post Office has been reduced, and in consequence the working of both counter and postal duties has fallen upon a few men; and will he state whether the practice of withdrawing an officer for temporary duty without inviting applicants is to be repeated this
    1004
    season, and whether, in view of the depletion of the male staff, he will cause inquiry to be made.
    LORD STANLEY: I am aware that the number of male sorting clerks and telegraphists at Armagh has been reduced by one, by the substitution of a female for a male officer. At the same time, however, the staff has been strengthened by the employment of two additional female officers. I will have inquiry made as regards the selection of an officer for temporary duty.

    Armagh Post Office—Learner's Pay.
    MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a learner, who has been employed at the Armagh Post Office, has received no salary for the first twelve months, and is now in receipt of only six shillings a week, whether the official reports show that he has discharged his duties in a competent manner; and whether he will consider the advisability of granting him some increase of pay.
    LORD STANLEY: I am not aware of the facts, but I will inquire into them.

    Cash-on-Delivery Post in Ireland.
    MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he has received resolutions from local authorities in Ireland objecting to the cash-on-delivery post as being calculated to inflict injury on traders and shopkeepers in country towns and villages in Ireland; and, if so, will he state what are the intentions of his Department towards this post.
    LORD STANLEY: Memorials from certain associations in Ireland, objecting to the institution of a postal system of cash-on-delivery, have been received. As regards the rest of the Question I must refer the hon. Member to an Answer which I gave to a similar Question asked by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Tyrone on the 22nd instant.†

    Cork Post Office Rates of Pay for American Mails.
    MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he will
    † See page 564.

    1005
    say on whose authority the special rate of pay for the working of American mails in the Cork Post Office was abolished; and whether, seeing that this rate which was in vogue for twenty years had the sanction of Parliament as an encouragement to the staff to expedite their work, steps will be taken to restore it.
    LORD STANLEY: The change to which the hon. Member refers was sanctioned in the ordinary course. I am informed that only one man suffered temporarily from the change, and that to the extent of one penny per hour. In his case I have sanctioned the payment of the former rate.
    MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: Is there any authority to override the sanction of Parliament?
    LORD STANLEY: I think we have perfect power to alter the scale of pay according to the duty which may be imposed. I am going more fully into the question of this mail at the present time.

    Committee of Defence.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will state under what Vote the salary of the Secretary of the Defence Committee of the Cabinet and his Staff will be provided, and if it is intended to give the House any opportunity of discussing the exact functions of his post. In putting the Question may I offer the congratulations of the Opposition side of the House to the right hon. Gentleman on his return to his seat.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am grateful to the right hon. Baronet and his friends for their congratulations. I think it would be extremely desirable that there should be an opportunity for discussing the Committee of Defence upon the Estimates because it is only in that way that any general debate can take place on matters in which both the Army and the Navy are concerned. The ruling of the Chair has hitherto been that in discussing the Navy Estimates nothing connected with the Army can be debated,
    1006
    and in discussing the Army Estimates nothing connected with the Navy can be introduced. There should, no doubt, be an opportunity of discussing the combination of the two defensive forces of the Empire; and probably, if and when the change foreshadowed in the Question takes effect, the debate can most properly take place on the Vote for the Secretary or Staff of the Defence Committee. I shall endeavour to put it down in such a form that the First Lord of the Treasury shall be the person to deal with such a Vote. The Chairman of the Defence Committee is the Prime Minister, and I think he ought to reply. If the Prime Minister should be in the other House, there might be some difficulty in arranging who should answer for the Defence Committee, but at the present time, at all events, I shall put it down in such a form that I shall be the person to reply.

    Balkan Peninsula.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury have His Majesty's Government now received any further information as to the probability of an outbreak of war in the Balkan Peninsula which they can communicate to the House; do they propose to take any, and if so, what steps to prevent the outbreak of such a war; and can they lay upon the Table any recent correspondence on the subject.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think it would be to the public interest for me to make a statement at the present time or to lay additional Papers on the Table of the House.

    Great Britain and Spain.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury are His Majesty's Government aware that the Spanish Government is mobilising its forces and has ordered reinforcements of troops to the Balearic Isles, to Ceuta, to Tarifa, and to Algeciras; are His Majesty's Government in posession of any information which enables them to explain this action of the Spanish Government; and can they give this House an assurance that the relations between this

    1007
    country and Spain continue to be of a cordial and friendly character.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There appears to be no truth in the rumour that the Spanish Government are mobilising their forces, though I believe they are adding to the strength of some of their garrisons. I am glad to say that the relations between this country and Spain are, and are likely to remain, of the most friendly character.

    Chinese Labour in the United Kingdom.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury has any reference been made in the negotiations between His Majesty's Government and the Chinese Government concerning the introduction of Chinese labour into South Africa, to the possibility of Chinese labour being imported into the United Kingdom; and will His Majesty's Government undertake not to entertain any such measure without previously consulting Parliament and taking its views on the effect such a measure would have in introducing competition with British labour.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman seems to be under the impression that there is some legislative restriction in this country upon the importation of Chinese labour. That is not the case, and when it is necessary to impose such a restriction, I need hardly say that this House, which is an essential part of the Legislature, will have to be consulted before such a law is passed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: May I be allowed to repeat the expression of our pleasure at seeing the Prime Minister again? Now he will resume his familiar function of telling us what the business for next week will be.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his references to me. On Monday we shall hope to get the Speaker out of the Chair on the Navy Estimates, and on Tuesday we
1008
shall proceed with Votes A and I—that is, the Votes for men and pay. It is difficult to make any forecast, because I do not know what progress will be made with those Votes on Tuesday; but, as far as I can say, the main business next week will be the continuation of Supply.

NEW BILLS.
  FALSE STATEMENTS (COMPANIES) BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to False Statements with respect to the financial position of companies or other bodies," presented by Mr. Attorney-General; supported by Mr. Solicitor-General, The Lord Advocate, and Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland; to be read a second time upon Monday, 7th March, and to be printed. [Bill 96.]
  FOREIGN MARRIAGES BILL.
  To amend the Law with respect to Marriages between British Subjects and Foreigners," presented by Mr. Macdona; supported by Mr. Talbot, Mr. Rothschild, Sir Joseph Dimsdale, Mr. Winston Churchill, Lord Hugh Cecil, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, Mr. Samuel Evans. Dr. Farquharson, Mr. Stuart Samuel, Mr. Heywood Johnstone, and Lord Edmund Talbot; to be read a second time upon Friday, 4th March, and to be printed. [Bill 97.]

SUPPLY.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

SUPPLY.

  ARMY (SUPPLEMENTARY) ESTIMATES, 1903–4.
  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 on the 31st day of March,

  1009
  1904, for Additional Expenditure, in resspect of the following Army Services, viz.:—

  £

  Vote 1. Pay, etc., of the Army

  2,000,000

  Vote 6. Transport and Remounts

  2,100,000

  Vote 7. Provisions, Forage, and other Supplies

  2,030,000

  Total

  £6,130,000

  Excess Appropriations-in-Aid (Votes 1,6,7,9, and 10)

  3,430,000

  £2,700,000

  MR. WHITLEYsaid he wished to draw attention to the item relating to gratuities to troops for active service—£100,000. He found on reference to the original Estimate that the sum asked for on that ground was only £3,000, and he was bound to point out what a remarkable increase this Supplementary Estimate showed. Indeed, the Estimate throughout was extraordinary. The first line disclosed an increase of 15,000 per cent. on the original demand; the second an increase of 1,500 per cent. and the present item one of 3,000 per cent. The Secretary for War on the preceding Monday told them this sum was required wholly—or in large part at any rate—for the South African Constabulary. Did the right hon. Gentleman remember an occurrence in the House a year ago which caused no little excitement at the time? A Supplementary Estimate was presented for £1,000,000 sterling, which was to be paid to the Colonial Government in discharge of all liabilities with regard to the South African Constabulary. A misunderstanding arose in regard to it, with the result that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer—then Postmaster-General—gave an explanatory statement on the Report stage. In the first instance, on the 3rd March, when submitting the Vote, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the Estimate represented a final adjustment and included all sums which the House would be asked to vote in connection with the administration of the Transvaal, but on the Report stage the following day the right hon. Gentleman said the Estimate represented a grant in aid of the colonial revenues
  1010
  in full discharge of all liabilities which would have fallen on the Government. And later on he added that the £1,000,000 was offered by the Government as a cash payment in discharge of all liabilities and it was accepted as such by Lord Milner, so that no further claim could be made on us. Now they were told that this was a new claim made by the South African Constabulary in respect of their military services, which entitled them to gratuities in the same way as ordinary troops. He held, however, that there was a clear and distinct pledge that under no circumstances should any further claim be made on this country in respect of the South African Constabulary. The £1 000,000 already paid was intended to cover everything, and it was even arranged that if there was a surplus it should not be returned to the Imperial Exchequer. If the South African Constabulary were entitled to the gratuity—and he did not deny that—it ought clearly to be paid out of the money voted by Parliament a year ago, and under these circumstances he moved the reduction of the Vote by £1,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That item, Vote 1, Sub-head H (Gratuities to the Troops for Active Service), be reduced by £1,000."—(Mr. Whitley.)
  SIR A. HAYTERconfessed that he also was astonished at this claim for gratuities. He agreed that the South African Constabulary deserved gratuities as much as the rest of the troops, but this was an enormous amount. It was almost incredible that they should amount to £10 per man, as they would be according to this Vote, even if the force had not been reduced from the original number asked for—10,000 to 7,000 men. He might mention that the original gratuity for the whole of the troops provided for in the 1902 Estimate only amounted to £350,000, and, therefore, the demand for so large a sum, as was now asked for, for one corps only was quite unintelligible. How did it come that this £100,000 was included in this Estimate? He thought the Committee were entitled to an explanation. If that amount was entirely for the South African Constabulary it was very much too large, or else it was very inaccurately described in the Estimate

  1011
  As "Gratuities to the troops for active service."
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER)thought there was some misconception about the matter. The whole of the sum was not in respect of the Constabulary, but the principal part was for that purpose. The number of men was 10,000, and the average amount of the gratuity per man was £7 10s. The hon. Member for Halifax had asked why this sum had not been added to the £1,000,000. The two had nothing to do with one another. The sum of £1,000,000 was arrived at in respect of the pay and maintenance of the Constabulary. The view the Colonial Administration took was that 6,000 would be adequate, but the Home Government took the view that 10,000 should be maintained. After some correspondence with Lord Milner it was arranged to pay £1,000,000 in respect of these men. The war gratuity was not originally allotted to the Constabulary. It was not originally intended to give it to them, but it was afterwards decided that, in view of the services they had rendered, they should receive it. The hon. Gentleman was perfectly right in saying that the whole of the sum was not for this purpose. He thought £70,000 was for the South African Constabulary and the remainder for gratuities to men in other branches of the service. What the War Office had now to do was to make good their undertaking to pay the gratuity to the South African Constabulary whose claims were coming in from time to time.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANasked the right hon. Gentleman to state the amount of the gratuity per man given to the troops.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he could give the basis on which the gratuities were paid. It was £5 per man to privates, and to all the ranks above them the amounts varied acording to the ranks.
  SIR A. HAYTERsaid that what they wanted to know was the average figure for each force.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid there was no doubt about that. It was £5.
  SIR A. HAYTERsaid it appeared to him that this sum did not properly come under the Supplementary Estimate. It should be in the main Estimate, because it was really for a new service. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that it was not originally intended to give gratuities to the South African Constabulary, but he supposed that in the intervening period a different resolution was come to. That should have been specifically noted on the Supplementary Estimate. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the whole sum was not for that purpose, but so far as he himself could make out from the figures, four-fifths was for that purpose. This illustrated once more the hand-to-mouth way in which these Estimates were presented to the House of Commons. The Financial Secretary stated the other day that the preceding item, headed "Pay, etc., of the Corps of Imperial Yeomanry (South Africa)," included not only pay but gratuities, and here they were discussing an item which included not only gratuities to the Constabulary but gratuities to the troops on active service. He thought the Committee had a right to know what the purposes were for which they were asked to vote money. It was incumbent on the Department presenting the Estimate to the House to give the fullest and frankest information.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid what had happened was this. The House of Commons had agreed to the principle of paying gratuities, and it was a question for those who had the administration of them to say how they should be given. There was no new principle involved. He entirely demurred when the hon. Baronet said this item was an illustration of the laxness with which the accounts were kept. This was the first time we had had a war carried on with money provided by Estimates. In every previous war the expenditure had been by a Vote of Credit. He believed the attempt which had been made to conduct the recent war by a system of Estimates which the House of Commons could appreciate had been successful. This having been done they were met now with criticism on the

  1013
  smallest points. He admitted that there I had been delay in bringing up the accounts, but it was not because the War Office desired that there should be postponement. It was because of the exigencies in connection with the winding up of a great campaign. He thought they might with some advantage forego these minute criticisms of the details of remnants of accounts of three or four years back. The hon. Gentleman opposite seemed to suggest that there had been a sort of Lâche on his part, or on the part of the Department. The War Office authorities had given their very best attention to the overtaking of the enormous task which had been devolved upon them during the war. They were as competent as the officials of any other Department. They had done what he was quite certain had never been accomplished by the Financial Department of any other War Office in the world.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid the right hon. Gentleman had given the Committee an admirable illustration of "the poacher turned gamekeeper." While he sat below the Gangway there was no one fuller of small and cavilling criticisms than the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I do honestly say that during the time the war was going on I did not make those criticisms.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid that whether it was war time or not they had a duty to perform. The war was over now at last. It was over according to the right hon. Gentleman and his friends a long time ago. The right hon. Gentleman deprecated criticism, and said that all those criticisms were futile and so forth. [An HON. MEMBER: So they are.] They were, he quite admitted, inconvenient to him. Then the right hon. Gentleman said what an admirable staff the War Office had! He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, but why were they admirable? Because they were always liable to "futile" criticisms on the part of the House of Commons, and if there was any falling off in the financial scrutiny of the public Departments the fault lay with the House of Commons, on account of the House not
  1014
  carrying on its proper function of liberty of criticism in these cases. The right hon. Gentleman could not deny that within the last two or three days his hon. friends behind him who had been examining these items had discovered a number of very strange proceedings. The right hon. Gentleman considered that the explanations he had given were satisfactory, but it was the duty of his hon. friends to exercise their functions by making these-criticisms. It was the system of close criticism that kept things straight. This new optimistic tone did not come well from the right hon. Gentleman. It was that tone which was more likely to lower the proper administration of public offices than any other.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid the praise bestowed by the Secretary for War on the Financial Department of his office was rather excessive. It was very easy during a war to make excessive Estimates. He remembered when the South African war was coming to a conclusion the War Department asked something like £30,000,000 to carry on the war, when it was supposed that it would go on for six months. No one could reasonably suppose that on this occasion the War Office had made up the Estimates carefully. The truth was that the War Office went on the system of taking a large margin indeed, but in every case there had had to be Supplementary Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman the other day said that the Estimates had invariably been exceeded.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I said exactly the contrary; that the amount spent was under the Estimate.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid that in this case there was a definite new expenditure which the Committee was not led to expect. He did not know what the reason was why the special gratuities to this corps were omitted in the first instance, and now decided to be given. He supposed it was that the Constabulary were to be given the disagreeable duty of chasing escaped Chinese servants.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESI said that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had declared

  1015
  that this was the first war that had been conducted under a system of Estimates, and not under a Vote of Credit. The right hon. Gentleman was wrong. It was true that in the case of a small war against a savage country the system of Vote of Credit was used, but it was not in the case of great wars. For instance, in the war with Napoleon there was a Vote of Credit to begin with, but the rest of the war was always carried on on the system of Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman said that this new system, as he thought it to be, was adopted to be in accordance with the views of the House of Commons. He did not think there had been any expression of opinion on the subject in the House of Commons. It was adopted, no doubt with the best intention, to give greater control to the House of Commons over expenditure. But he did not believe that it had had that result. When the Secretary of State for War talked of minute criticism, might he remind the right hon. Gentleman of the circumstance that in the Public Accounts Committee it was avowed by the financial authority of the War Office that, in respect of the expenditure by officers in the field in the way of purchases, they could not tell what that was within a million or two. That seemed to him to show that the system of estimating in advance had been a failure. Perhaps that was because there was no machinery for it. It might be that they wanted an entirely new constitution for their financial arrangements in time of war; and that the Commander-in-Chief should have a sort of double to take charge of the financial arrangements. He though it might be a matter for serious consideration whether when—which God forbid—we came across another big war, the old or the new system should be adopted.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORT,)said that the hon. Member for King's Lynn had stated that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War was wrong when he alleged that this was the first time that the expenses of a war had been provided for by Estimates. Now, the Report for the year 1902 of the Public Accounts Committee, of which the
  1016
  hon. Gentleman was a member, stated that—
  "In deference to the wishes of the Treasury, the war expenditure has been met for the first time by Estimate, and not by Vote of Credit, and that in attempting to do so, for the better information of Parliament, great latitude must be allowed, both in bringing to account within the proper year, and in estimating in detail for each separate Vote and Sub-head."
  That opinion was repeated in the last Report of the Public Accounts Committee, which stated that—
  "In adopting the plan of proceeding by Estimates, and not by Vote of Credit, in deference to the wishes of the Treasury, the War Office must, in the opinion of your Committee, be allowed considerable latitude both in bringing the expenditure to account within the proper year, and in estimating in detail for each separate Vote and Sub-head."
  He respectfully suggested that the point raised by the hon. Gentleman was rather small and minute, but if any further explanation was required he would be glad to give it. We were now at the end of the greatest war ever conducted, or attempted to be conducted, under circumstances in which, in the opinion of the Financial Department of the War Office, it could not be conducted, viz., under Estimates. They protested that it was practically impossible to conduct a war on Estimates, but their protest was over-ruled, and for four years the Government had done their best to prove that they were mistaken. This was an absolutely unprecedented war, conducted in unprecedented circumstances, and at an unprecedented distance from this country, at a cost of over £200,000,000, and he asked the Committee to make allowance for some little miscalculation and for small unforeseen expenditure.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid he could assure the hon. Gentleman that they were trying not to be too hard on the Financial Department of the War Office. He himself had only ventured to utter a word of protest against the way the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War had met their endeavour to extract information. It struck him that the right hon. Gentleman had already inherited a great deal of the spirit of his predecessor in the office of Secretary of State for War; and he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that

  1017
  the House of Commons was not a "Chinese compound." They had a right to ask for information on these items, and when the Government came down day after day for millions for the public service, they would continue to inquire and to criticise. He did not believe that this was a trifling matter—voting money with both hands, and the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman was not becoming to him. The right hon. Gentleman would get his money faster by adopting a different attitude than that which he had adopted just now. The Secretary for War had said that the war had been conducted for the first time on the system of Estimates; but he agreed with the hon. Member for King's Lynn that a lump sum might have been better than Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman said that the war was over; but last year when these Estimates were framed these items were not brought in as they should have been. Attention had been drawn to three or four consecutive Supplementary Estimates which showed an increase of 1,000 per cent. on the original Estimate. It was due to the Committee that they should have some explanation of that, and sufficient explanation had not been given. He was still of opinion that these items ought never to have been brought in on this Vote at all.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid he quite agreed that some latitude ought to be given to the War Office in regard to their Estimates, but there were limits when every Vote one came to, was found to be largely out, not to a small extent, but two or three times the original Estimate. That was going beyond reasonable latitude. If the Estimates were to be drawn in this loose and careless fashion, it would be better to bring in a lump sum. He did not find fault with the Financial Department of the War Office on this occasion, but what he wanted to know was how it was that the Constabulary were now allotted to receive a gratuity? They had been fighting all through the war. Some of them were the first troops to be engaged, and their claims should have been considered earlier. The war had been over eighteen months, and surely it did not take anything like that
  1018
  time to decide who were entitled to gratuities and who were not. That was in the ordinary routine of the War Office business; there was no difficulty in deciding it. It was quite true that these men were paid at a much higher rate than our own soldiers, but so were the Colonials, and surely the War Office could have decided earlier that these men were entitled to gratuities. There was no reason why this item should not have come upon the ordinary Estimates last year. He wanted to know why the decision to give gratuities to the Constabulary had not been come to earlier, and why some part, at least, of these gratuities had not been paid out of the £1,000,000 voted last year.
  MR. MALCOLMsaid that the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken was a very good example of how the time of the House of Commons could be wasted. The hon. Gentleman asked why the troops who were employed the earliest were not paid the earliest.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid he did not ask that Question.
  MR. MALCOLMsaid it seemed to be quite immaterial to the hon. Gentleman that the force which was now to be paid was not in existence at the time he supposed it was. He thought the explanation of the Financial Secretary to the War Office was perfectly satisfactory. The hon. Gentleman admitted that there was an oversight at a time of very strenuous work, and he. acknowledged it just as "a poacher turned gamekeeper" would acknowledge it. It was no part of his business to defend the War Office; but he did not see that there was any occasion for the present attack. If British infantry or cavalry were being kept out of their gratuities hon. Gentlemen opposite would be the very first to complain about it. It was perfectly reasonable to expect such an oversight as had occurred, during a period of a great war; and if hon. Gentlemen opposite wished the House of Commons to proceed as the Public Accounts Committee advised by way of Estimates instead of by Votes of Credit they were doing their best to prevent it. The House of Commons ought to be protected against such a display of financial pedantry, and

  1019
  it ought to be allowed to proceed with its business. There had been laxity under circumstances of unprecedented difficulty. He thought that the Report of the Public Accounts Committee entirely disposed of the contention of the hon. Gentleman for King's Lynn. The change in procedure which was now adopted was extremely satisfactory, and was a great improvement on the old method. He certainly would support the War Office.
  MR. RUNCIMANsaid that he respected the loyalty of the hon. Gentleman to the permanent officials when he indulged in a defence of the Financial Department of the War Office; but the right hon. Gentleman had admitted that that Department was not what it should be, and he added that the remedy which ought to be applied, and which he thought would shortly be applied, was to provide a proper financial staff. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman should not resent hon. Members on that side of the House expressing a similar opinion. The hon. Gentleman who had just spoken was altogether mistaken regarding the functions of the House of Commons. He appeared to think that it was improper for hon. Gentlemen to discuss small details. The war cost £250,000,000, but even still they had regard to such a comparatively small sum as £100,000, and they objected to the Vote being brought on at that time of day. As long as these Supplementary Estimates continued to be introduced there would be a feeling that they had not yet got to the end of the job. He was not at all sure that when the right hon. Gentleman submitted the Army Estimates that the House of Commons would not be asked to clear up more accounts. He wished to ask a Question of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the distribution of the gratuities to officers who had served in South Africa. He understood that an officer holding a staff appointment was granted the gratuity of his substantive rank in a case where the staff appointment would only have entitled him to a smaller gratuity. Be wished to know whether regimental officers who were given local and temporary rank received similar advantage. For instance, a regimental captain appointed as staff-lieutenant would be entitled to £60
  1020
  gratuity, whereas a regimental lieutenant appointed to the rank of local captain would only be entitled to £27 10s. That was a great inequality, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would inquire into it.
  SIR A. HAYTERsaid that only £350,000 was taken in last year's Estimates and £3,000 in the Supplementary Estimates for gratuities. He wished to know where the remainder of the money came from.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid the difference was taken out of another Vote.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid he thought he could help the hon. Gentleman out of his difficulty. Last year the Secretary of State for War took no less than £2,250,000 for gratuities. He respectfully demurred to the Secretary of State for War denouncing perfectly honest and straightforward criticisms. The criticisms were twofold. In the first place the charge should have been foreseen, and, in the second place, the Estimate was really a new item. The right hon. Gentleman himself had admitted that. He said it was not originally intended to give the South African Constabulary gratuities for military service, but that a decision to the contrary had been arrived at. They had a right to ask on what grounds that decision was arrived at, and why it was not stated on the Estimate that it was a perfectly new charge.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid that last year the Secretary of State for War took £3,000,000 for gratuities which was spent on other purposes.
  MR. RUNCIMANasked when the decision was arrived at.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he could not answer the hon. Gentleman's Question about officers' gratuities, but the decision to pay gratuities to the South African Constabulary was arrived at in June, 1902.
  MR. RUNCIMANasked, if it was arrived at in June, 1902, why it did not appear in last year's Estimates.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he had previously explained the matter. The money began to be paid immediately the decision was arrived at, but it could not be all paid in one day. The payment occupied many months. The fact that the money was being paid had nothing to do with the question of accounting, as it could not be brought into account until it had all been checked and regulated. The result was that the money was not brought into account during the year. Under their existing system of finance, money which was actually paid during one year had to be voted the next year. It was a perfectly familiar transaction, and one which took place in every branch of the public service. A large part of the money was spent in 1902. but it was not brought into account during that year, and the money afterwards appropriated for it was spent on other purposes.
  MR. RUNCIMANsaid he thought the right hon. Gentleman did not quite comprehend his Question. What he referred to was not the appropriation of the money but the estimating of the amount. In June, 1902, the War Office knew that gratuities were to be paid to the South African Constabulary. They also knew the number of men that would receive such gratuities, and he could not understand why they did not put the money down on the Estimates.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid the Estimates were made up in October, but the accounts for the previous year did not close until the month of November, and the Estimates had to be made without knowing what accounts might be brought in up to the following October. That, he thought, was the explanation of what seemed to be a very puzzling feature on the face of the accounts.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman met some of the points which had been urged with regard to other items, but it did not at all touch the particular question under discussion. In June, 1902, it was known that these gratuities were going to be paid, and the number of men entitled
  1022
  to receive them, and between June and October there was ample time to place before the House the exact facts of the case. The point of the complaint was not the question of whether the money was to be paid within a particular period, but the fact that, by their not being brought into account in the year, it was taken altogether out of the power of the House to criticise these gratuities. He had come to the conclusion that it was perfectly useless for the House of Commons to attempt to exercise any control over War Office Estimates. He had listened with astonishment when the Financial Secretary stated that the Treasury had insisted that the War Office should make Estimates and not take a Vote on account, and the War Office had declared they were incapable of doing what the Treasury required. When such relations existed between two Departments it was not surprising that these extraordinary Supplementary Estimates should be introduced. The Committee were entitled to some explanation of why the Treasury insisted on the War Office carrying out a financial operation which that Department declared themselves to be incompetent to perform.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid the hon. Member had asked why, if it was known that these gratuities would become due, they were not included in the original Estimate. As a matter of fact, a very large sum had already been voted by Parliament for gratuities, and it was not known for many months how much of the £3,000,000 which had been set aside would be required. It was thought that that sum would be ample. Claims for gratuities had been coming in daily for months, but at the time there was no anticipation that the sum available would not be amply sufficient. He did not know why this particular war was made the occasion for trying this new system; nor did he recognise the hon. Member's description of internecine war between the two Departments because the Treasury had insisted on a course which the War Office thought there would be difficulty in following. It was decided to make the experiment—he believed with the entire concurrence of the Public Accounts

  1023
  Committee, and the experiment had been made with results which were, or were not, satisfactory according to the point of view of hon. Members.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 127; Noes, 184. (Division List No. 18.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Gilhooly, James

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

  Price, Robert John

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Priestley, Arthur

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Harwood, George

  Rea, Russell

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Reddy, M.

  Blake, Edward

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Boland, John

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Brigg, John

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Roche, John

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Runciman, Walter

  Burns, John

  Joyce, Michael

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland).

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Kilbride, Denis

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Caldwell, James

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Cameron, Robert

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Sheehy, David

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Leng, Sir John

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Logan, John William

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lundon, W.

  Slack, John Bamford

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Crombie, John William

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Crooks, William

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E).

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  Mooney, John J.

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

  Delany, William

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Tomkinson, James

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)

  Murphy, John

  Toulmin, George

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Newnes, Sir George

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  O'Brien, Patrick. (Kilkenny)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Elibank, Master of

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk. Mid.)

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Woodhouse, Sir J.T(Huddersf'd

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Young, Samuel

  Fenwick, Charles

  O'Dowd, John

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  O'Malley, William

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  O'Mara, James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whitley and Mr. Soares.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Partington, Oswald

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Mich. Hicks

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Bignold, Arthur

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Allhusen, Augustus Hen. Eden

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Bond, Edward

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bowles, Lt.-Col. H.F (Middlesex

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Bull, William James

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J.A.(Glasgow)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Denny, Colonel

  Balcarres, Lord

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.A(Wore

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Coddington, Sir William

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lawson, Jn. G. (Yorks., N. R.)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Forster, Henry William

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Smith, H. C (North'mb Tyneside.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Malcolm, Ian

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Gore, Hn. S.F. Ormsby-(Linc)

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Milvain, Thomas

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)

  Stock, James Henry

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Stroyan, John

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G(Oxf'd Univ.

  Greene, Sir E.W.(B'rySEdm'nd

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Tuff, Charles

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Heath, A. Howard (Hanley)

  Pease, Herbt. Pike (Darlington)

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A.C.E.(Taunton)

  Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.)

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Percy, Earl

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.

  Hoult, Joseph

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks.)

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Hunt, Rowland

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Kerr, John

  Renwick, George

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

  Kimber, Henry

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid he wished to ask a question about item K, "Pay, Wages, etc., of Army Service Corps Subordinate Establishments, £230,000."No information was given in the Estimate, but he had gathered that this was another South African charge. In the last general Estimates they were led to believe that they were voting the nominal charges in time of peace. There had been a large charge for war purposes, and until the other day they believed that the country had returned to the ordinary normal expenditure of the Army. Now they were told that it was necessary to double that charge, and that it was due to further expenditure in South Africa, and to the
  1026
  retention of native employees in connection with military services. He should like to know whether the increased South African charge was in any degree due to the alteration of policy announced in July last as regarded the permanent retention of a much larger force than had been contemplated when the Estimates were introduced by the Secretary of State for India. He moved the reduction of the Vote by £1,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item, Vote 1, Sub-head K (Pay, Wages, etc., of Army Service Corps. Subordinate Establishments), be reduced by £1,000."—(Mr. Buchanan.)
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTexplained that this money was paid almost

  1027
  entirely for the building of barracks for the troops in South Africa, to natives and others for carrying materials. The General Officer Commanding must have omitted this charge from his estimate, and it had become necessary to provide it in this way.
  MR. BUCHANANasked if it was likely that next year they would get back to something like the normal charge.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: Yes, if the building operations are completed.
  MR. SOARES (Devonshire, Barnstaple)asked if the hon. Member could inform the Committee how many natives were employed on this work, as it would affect the Chinese labour question.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid this money was not only payment for carrying materials, but for the erection of hutments. Had this money been spent strictly in materials or had some of it gone in wages?
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTreplied it was thought at first that the original estimate included the cost of transport, civilian drivers, and civilian workmen employed on the buildings, but owing to a mistake the estimate did not include those charges and they were obliged to ask for them now.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid it was extraordinary that an item of £230,000 had been omitted by an officer in South Africa, and had not been detected by the War Office.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid that very serious complaints as to the housing of the troops had come from South Africa, and it would give great satisfaction if they could have a clear statement that this work was nearly completed, and that the conditions under which the troops were housed would be very shortly much improved.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid the question of the housing of the troops was very important, and he had given much
  1028
  attention to it, but it was hardly ½one which arose upon this Vote, although if it was in order he was perfectly prepared to go into it.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Original Question again proposed.
  SIR A. HAYTERpointed out that the original Estimate for the Reserves was £680,000 for 80,000 men. The right hon. Gentleman had said there would be a considerable shortage in the Reserve. and he took only £480,000 for 70,000 men, or £200,000 less than the original Estimate. That had the effect of falsifying the amount they had to pay for the Reserves.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERreplied that the men had passed into the Reserve earlier than was expected, and the result was an excess. He thought that was a matter for congratulation. The Reserve was short, and he was glad that this increment had taken place.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid that the item for the China Expeditionary Force was in some respects new, for he would not be liable to the reply from the Treasury Bench that this sum had to do with South African expenditure. In the first place, the respect in which this item bore an unhappy resemblance was that they had this year, as well as last year, an amount almost identically the same as the original Estimate. He ventured to say it did not show very good financial work on the part of the War Office. Referring to the item of £135,000 for "Pay, etc., of the China Expeditionary Force," the hon. Member said the Committee should bear in mind that the Report of the Auditor-General for 1902–3 gave the total amount for that Expedition as £1,807,000. They had not in their possession the Army Appropriation Accounts for the year ending 31st March last, and, therefore, they did not know what had been spent for that year. He thought it would certainly be within the mark to say that considerably over £2,000,000 had been spent on the China Expeditionary Force. The sum now in the the Supplementary Estimate ought to

  1029
  have been foreseen and inserted in the general Estimates of the year. The note at the end of the Supplementary Estimate said—
  "The gross sum of £400,000 is required in connection with the China Expeditionary Force, owing to the accounts for 1902–3 having been received too late to be brought to account in that year. These charges are, however, to the extent of £200,000, met by surplus Appropriations-in-aid, due to arrear receipts in respect of the same period."
  He did not think that, together with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War on the opening night of this discussion, was an adequate explanation either of this particular item or of the way these sums of money were charged. This expedition was undertaken by the Indian Army, and the cost was to be paid for, not out of the Indian Exchequer, but out of the Imperial Exchequer. He ventured to say that there was more than a probability that the delay in settling the accounts was much more likely to be due to difficulties here at home than in India. He reminded the Committee that in connection with the Abyssinian Expedition which was carried on by Indian troops, at the cost of the Imperial Government, it was more than twelve years before the Indian Government could get full payment of the money it had expended. He could not see why the Government did not enter an adequate sum in the Estimates last year to meet these claims. The House knew that communications had been constantly going on, in the course of last year, between the home Government and the Indian Government. On 18th March last a military member of the Indian Council stated that a few battalions of the Indian Army were still employed in Northern China at the cost of the home Government, and he added that the administration of the force had been taken over by the War Office. That showed clearly that the home Government must have foreseen that a charge of this sort would come in for payment in the year drawing to a close. Was the present item to be final or not? He would be pleased to find that there was no further sum inserted in the Estimates for the China Expeditionary Force. There were still a number of Indian troops there. Was there to be no charge for them put on
  1030
  the Estimates for the year? He moved to reduce the Vote by £1,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item, Vote 1, Sub-head AA (Pay, &c, of the China Expeditionary Force), be reduced by £1,000."—(Mr. Buchanan.,)
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid it was really satisfactory to learn from the hon. Gentleman that the War Office had reduced the period of accounting between the Indian Government and ourselves from twelve to something like two years. The hon. Gentleman had said he did not understand why this account should come in now. He had satisfied himself, and he thought he could satisfy the Committee, that it was not very material. This was an expedition conducted many thousands of miles away. It was conducted under conditions which were quite uncertain at the time. No one knew what the development of the campaign might be, and no one could anticipate the development that took place. An Estimate was made by the War Office of the cost of the expedition. The estimated cost was £6,600,000, and the expenditure had been £6,121,000. The hon. Member had asked why that was so. The answer was very simple. In the early stages of the war the War Office provided for all emergencies and took Estimamates in excess of the actual amount that could be expended in that year. There was a very large excess taken in the two-years 1900–1 and 1901–2, but the expenditure was not sufficiently quickly brought to account, and considerable sums were returned to the Treasury. The result had been that the sums which were voted as necessary for the expedition and not expended in those years had to be re-voted, and now a portion was to be re-voted this evening. The hon. Member had asked why delay had taken place, and had suggested that because they had had communications with the Indian Government they might have expedited the issue of the accounts. If he remembered rightly, it was the Public Accounts Committee that suggested that the accounts should be audited in India. As a matter of fact, they were not presented at a time when they could be brought within the ordinary Estimates for the year. This was not in

  1031
  the true sense a Supplementary Estimate at all. It was not a payment in excess of the original Estimate for the whole expedition. It was delayed payment. The actual expenditure had been less than the money voted by Parliament. As to the question whether this was a final Estimate, he had to say that it was final with respect to the expedition, but there were still troops in China, and, of course, as long as
  there were troops there to guard the railway there must be a charge. That would be brought up in the ordinary way, and would be subject to the hon. Member's criticism.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 136; Noes, 187. (Division List No. 19.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, (William Cork, N.E.)

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Power, Patrick, Joseph

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Gilhooly, James

  Price, Robert John

  Austin, Sir John

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

  Priestley, Arthur

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Reddy, M.

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Harwood, George

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Beaumont, Wentworth, C. B.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Bell, Richard

  Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Blake, Edward

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Boland, John

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Roche, John

  Brigg, John

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Runciman, Walter

  Brown, George M.(Edinburgh)

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Joyce, Michael

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Burns, John

  Kilbride, Denis

  Sheehy, David

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Labouchere, Henry

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Caldwell, James

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Cameron, Robert

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Slack, John Bamford

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Leng, Sir John

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Logan, John William

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lundon, W.

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Crombie, John William

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Crooks, William

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  Mooney, John J.

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

  Delany, William

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Tomkinson, James

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)

  Murphy, John

  Toulmin, George

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Newnes, Sir George

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Elibank, Master of

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Wilson, Fred. W.(Norfolk, Mid.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Woodhouse, Sir J.T(Huddersf' d)

  Fenwick, Charles

  O'Dowd, John

  Young, Samuel

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  O'Malley, William

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  O'Mara, James

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Ainsworth.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Partington, Oswald

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Allhusen, Augustus Hen. Eden

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Mich. Hicks

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bignold, Arthur

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F. (Middlesex)

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Platt-Higgins. Frederick

  Bowles, T. Gibson(King's Lynn

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Heath, A. Howard (Hanley)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bull, William James

  Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J.A.(Glasgow)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hn. H. (Somers't, E.)

  Renwick, George

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A (Worc)

  Hoult, Joseph

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Coddington, Sir William

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.)

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Kerr, John

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Kimber, Henry

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth)

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Lawson, Jn. G. (Yorks., N. R.)

  Smith, H. C (North'mb Tyneside)

  Denny, Colonel

  Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

  Spear, John Ward

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Stirling- Max well, Sir John M.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham))

  Stock, James Henry

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.)

  Stroyan, John

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.)

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Lyttelton Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants., W.)

  Macdona, John Gumming

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  M'Calnont, Colonel James

  Tuff, Charles

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Valentia, Viscount

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Malcolm, Ian

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriessh.)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

  Welby, Lt.-Col A.C.E.(Taunton)

  Forster, Henry William

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N).

  Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts).

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Gardner, Ernest

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.

  Core, Hn. S.F. Ormsby-(Linc)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Wilson-Todd, Sir WH.(Yorks.)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R.(Bath)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Wolff, Gustav, Wilhelm

  Greene, Sir E.W.(B'ry S. Edm'nds)

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Pease, Herbt. Pike (Darlington)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

  Hamilton, Marq of(L'nd'nderry)

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

  Percy, Earl

  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid he thought it would be unfortunate if this Vote went by default and therefore he moved to reduce it by £100. So far as he could understand these Estimates, this expedition to Somaliland was to cost this year £1,500,000. He wanted to know whether the Secretary for War
  1034
  could inform the Committee what the approximate total cost of this war had been up to the present time, and whether the right hon. Gentleman could offer any guarantee as to the probable length of this war? The whole thing had been a disastrous undertaking to this country. It had been conducted with great loss of life, and no one had been able to understand what the real object of the war

  1035
  was, or whether it would end even if we succeeded in capturing the so-called "Mad Mullah." He did not know whether the Government continued to call that gentleman the "Mad Mullah," but there seemed to be considerable method in his madness. It appeared to him that the War Office regarded this war as a permanent institution; but he hoped the Committee would have some assurance that it would not be continued, and that something would be done to bring it to an end. Would the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of War tell the House of Commons what the Government were going to do with the "Mad Mullah" when they had captured him I What he understood was that this gentleman was a patriot in his own country; that he believed in the Imperialism in his own part of the world; that he objected to invasion and interference by foreigners; and that he did not want immigrants whom he disliked to come into his land by force. Therefore he was called the "Mad Mullah!" In these times of extravagant expenditure, when the resources of the country were being severely taxed, and when the financial outlook was causing great anxiety to thoughtful people, he hoped the Secretary for War would be able to tell the Committee something of interest in regard to this question. He wanted to know, first, the amount which this war had cost up to the present time; second, whether the right hon. Gentleman could make any reasonable estimate—he did not mean a War Office estimate but a real genuine estimate—of how long this war was to be continued; and third, what return this country was to get for this enormous outlay in that wild part of the world.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item, Vote 1, Sub-head BB (Pay, &c, of the Somaliland Expeditionary Force), be reduced by £100."—(Mr. Broadhurst.)
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that it was not a new circumstance in our history that we should have to make such expeditions as this in Somaliland. The Mullah might be a patriot as the hon. Gentleman had said, for all he knew, but this patriot had, on three occasions, raided British territory and put to death those
  1036
  who were under our protection. We were just as much bound, when an armed invader entered the lands of those we had undertaken to protect, to send an expedition against that invader as if his raid had been made upon those under the direct rule of the Crown. This, or any Government, was compelled to drive the invader from the territory of the protectorate, although he might come back. The Government believed that there was now a more favourable chance than ever before of putting an end to these raids and getting rid of the Mullah. The operations up to the present time had cost £3,300,000, and the present Vote would carry them on to the end of the financial year. What would take place after that he could not say. Undoubtedly this was a most critical period, because the grass would be beginning to grow a little later, and the circumstances which controlled the operations of the enemy would cease to control him. He thought that they might feel sanguine that the efforts which were being made by our troops would be crowned with a measure of success. The only question now was whether hon. Gentlemen desired that the Government should bring those operations to a close before they had made certain that the tribes for whose protection the Government was responsible, would be no longer liable to such incursions.
  Mr. COURTENAY WARNERsaid that there had been recently rather disquieting news from Somaliland with reference to the retirement of General Egerton. He hoped that the Committee would have an assurance from the Secretary of State that the campaign would be brought to a close, and that it would not be like the Dutch campaign in Sumatra, which had been going on for thirty years. He should like an assurance as to what the proposals for the future were. If the present operations were not successful, were they to be continued indefinitely at enormous expenditure? Last year they were told that no further operations would be undertaken; but as soon as the House rose a fresh expedition was started. He did not express any opinion as to whether that expedition should have been undertaken

  1037
  or not, but there were two points which were very unwisely carried out. In the first place there was a large importation of Indian camels into Somaliland which were not suited by the climate and which died like flies. Secondly native levies under British officers were employed after a considerable sum had been spent on their training, but the moment the first shot was fired they all bolted leaving the officers in a position of great danger. He wished to know whether that practice would be stopped, and also whether the House would be consulted before any larger operations were undertaken.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the Secretary of State seemed surprised at the Committee being taken aback by this Supplementary Estimate. But surely it was not surprising, considering the original Estimate was only £250,000, and that the Supplementary Estimate now asked for amounted to £1,600,000. The Secretary of State said that when British territory was invaded it was the duty of this country to drive out the enemy. As a general principle they all agreed to that; but he wished to ask whether the Secretary of State thought that the Government or the House of Commons would have undertaken to drive out the Mullah if they had known it would lead to such enormous expenditure and such great loss of life. That was a question which met with the high-faluting of the Secretary of State. Now that they were in it they would have to go through with it. The original criticism on the expedition, that it was like looking for a needle in a bundle of hay, had unfortunately been justified. The Mullah had only to retreat and it was most unlikely that he would be brought to book. The only satisfaction which the Secretary of State was likely to get was that the war would be like the Dutch war in Sumatra which had been in progress for fifty years. This was one of the cases in which the cost had not been counted before the expedition was entered upon, and it was clear that there was a great deal of miscalculation and muddle in connection with it.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that the Secretary of State had put altogether too high the doctrine of British territory in
  1038
  a matter of this kind. Immediately before the war began this was an India Office occupation on the coast in order to promote trade with Aden. Then the India Office handed it over to the Foreign Office, who in turn handed it over to the War Office to carry on the war. The Secretary of State spoke as if the country was a portion of British territory as is India. Nothing of the kind. We had never been in the country. There were no magistrates no residents, and no British officials in it. It was a desert country where we had never been. At present there were no frontiers, but ultimately no doubt they would be drawn, and possibly the territory the Committee was now discussing would be handed over to someone else as a vast neighbouring territory of the same kind had been handed by us to Abyssinia. To speak of such a territory which they had merely taken by colouring it red on the map, as British territory in the sense in which the United Kingdom or India was British territory was simply misleading the House of Commons. The moral of the whole thing was that the House should be a little more careful than they had been in former times, in the matter of pegging out claims.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he had not put the question as one of territory at all. It was a question of treaty obligations. It was perfectly open to the House on a proper occasion to discuss whether the Government ought to have entered into those treaties or not, but, having entered into them for the protection of life and property for our own purposes, he held, although the opinion might be regarded as heretical by hon. Gentlemen opposite, that they were bound to give effect to them. The hon. Member for Poplar asked whether the Government would have entered on this expedition had they known what would happen. If a war for the protection of life and property was justifiable, the question of cost ought not to decide whether it should be undertaken or not. If it were right to go to war to protect those to whose protection this country was pledged, then the question of money did not in his opinion enter primarily into account.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I ought to remind the Committee that the policy of entering upon this expedition is not open to discussion now. The future policy and the conduct of the operations are quite open to criticism.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLINsaid he was very much struck by the answer; which the Secretary of State gave to the Question which had been asked him as to how long he expected the war would last. The right hon. Gentlemen said he could not say, and justified his answer by reference to the length of the South African campaign. The Irish Members had every reason to protest against the Vote, and he was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman who moved the reduction did not move the omission of the total amount. There was no necessity for this campaign, and there was no question of defending British territory. Up to the present this campaign had cost £1,800,000, and the right hon. Gentleman had had to admit that no satisfactory result had been achieved. The "Mad Mullah" was said to have been turned out of the territory. If that was so, why did they not keep him where they had him? He strongly protested against the expenditure, because Ireland was already heavily taxed for wars in which she had absolutely no interest and with which she had no sympathy. Last night when a reasonable request was made for money for Ireland, the reply of the Treasury was that they had no money, and yet these large sums could be provided without the slightest prospect of any benefit accruing. Of all the expeditions ever undertaken by Great Britain this was one of the most shocking. He hoped the Amendment would be pressed to as division in order that an opportunity might be given of protesting against an expedition which was unnecessary and a Vote which could not be explained.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he could not vote for the Amendment as this was a matter which must be left to the responsibility of Ministers, and if the House of Commons was so advised as to keep in power Ministers who undertook expeditions which ought not to be undertaken, they should be prepared to vote the necessary Estimates. He desired to
  1040
  press on the Committee, however, that this was one of a series of small wars, which, in his opinion, ought to and could have been avoided. It was this kind of subsidiary expenditure which went largely to swell the enormous Estimates with which the House had to deal. The case for the Somaliland War—it had ceased to be an expedition—was a very bad one. He had never been able to comprehend the object for which it was being waged. Our original strip of territory was quite enough for us in that wretched locality, and for some years it was administered with considerable success. The Somalis were an easily governed people. Sufficient reason had not been shown for carrying fire and sword amongst them. All sorts of assurances of an encouraging character had been given with regard to the war, but they had all been falsified. He attributed the outbreak to the much too great independence allowed, especially to military gentlemen, in the districts concerned. These gentlemen, being anxious for distinction and promotion, were much too apt to engage this country in matters which led to these costly wars. What was to be done with the Mullah if he were caught? It would have been much better to have allowed him to run loose in his own part of the country. He earnestly hoped that some assurance would be given that this was the last sum the Committee would be ask to vote in the matter. If, however, as he understood, this was merely to carry matters on until 31st March, and that another £1,000,000 or £2,000,000 would be asked for next year, it opened up a most distressing vista. He warned the Government against the beginning of strife in respect of these wars, which started in a small way, but ended by costing millions of money and thousands of lives, and led to no adequate results.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid the hon. Member for King's Lynn, who had asked for an assurance that no more money would be asked for, could not have been in the House when the Secretary of State declared that the war must be carried through no matter how much it cost. In these circumstances the Committee ought to have a clear understanding as to what they were

  1041
  fighting for. If there was a possibility of spending £100,000,000 he wanted to know under what conditions they were going to make peace. Were they to go on pursuing the Mullah until they caught him? Whenever we quarrelled with any of these tribes, we, in order to bring to them the blessings of Christianity, sent out an expedition to burn down their houses, and to destroy all we possibly could; and then, having mowed down the natives with our machine guns, we thanked God we were superior to them. There was no use in continuing these operations. If the Mullah was really caught another would arise. Nobody could show the slightest possibility of any benefit accruing from this expenditure of this money, and therefore he should gladly vote for the Amendment.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLINsaid if the Government embarked upon an expedition of this kind this country ought to pay for it, and he did not see why Ireland should be called upon to contribute any share for this expedition to Somaliland. Last night a claim was made for £3,000 for technical education in Ireland, and it was treated in the spirit in which the Treasury always treated claims of a practical character from Ireland. Now £1,800,000 was to be expended upon hunting the Mad Mullah of whose future peregrinations they had no assurance. The hon. Member for King's Lynn had asked what was to be done with the Mullah when he was caught. Might he suggest that he should be made President of the Tariff Commission or found a seat upon the Treasury Bench. This was a useless expenditure because the Mad Mullah was simply a religious enthusiast and that was no reason why he should be pursued at a cost to the taxpayers of £1,800,000. There were religious zealots in this House but they did not spend any money in pursuing them. It was scandalous that such a sum of money should be taken from the British Treasury when there was so much need for social reform and for more generous treatment towards Ireland in matters like technical education. He entirely associated himself with the hon. Member for Galway, in protesting against this outrageous expenditure and against the refusal of the Government to grant the
  1042
  small demand of Ireland in regard to technical education.
  MR. AINSWORTH (Argyllshire)said it was desirable that some responsible member of the Government should tell the House what was their policy in Somaliland. The South African War and its results proved that without a definite policy confusion and loss were certain to follow. It was impossible to see the end of this expedition. What was it intended for? This Vote was no criterion as to the further amounts the House would be asked for, and he sincerely hoped that before the House voted on the matter some undertaking would be given as to what the Government had in view.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he shared the distinction of opposing the Somaliland expedition for the last five or six years both by speech and vote. In the early days of this expedition he remembered both the hon. Member for Northampton and himself being gibed and jeered at by hon. Members opposite. It was suggested that they were unpatriotic and not touched with the new Imperialism, and it was said that they were not alive to the true interests of the British Empire. He claimed that they had been more prescient than those who jeered at them, and to-night he was using the same arguments against this expedition as he had urged before. He contended that the Mullah had the right, as a religious zealot and a tribal chief, to exercise what rights he thought he had and to contend for them with other men of similar ambitions and views. It was not our business to go to the four corners of the earth adjusting religious differences between Buddhist passive re-sisters and high Churchmen there. The Mullah was a sort of fiscal reformer on the ramp whose authority was disputed, but the fact that he held those views was no reason why this country should do what had been done in Somaliland. See how appetite grows on what it feeds upon. The sum of £80,000 was the amount of the original Estimate for this expedition, and it grew from that to £250,000. Now they found that it had become £1,800,000, and if they continued Mullah hunting he believed the total

  1043
  would be nearer £5,000,000. He wished to take time by the forelock, and he protested against a continuation of this expenditure. There was an impression that these expeditions benefited trade, but there was not a greater illusion. The idea that they could extend trade in this way was a ridiculous one. The man who had done most to kill British trade in Africa was Mr. H. M. Stanley, whom the Government had imitated. They ought to do all they could to develop trade routes, but they should not interefere with tribal customs. They ought to let those tribes have their rows on religious matters just as they did in Belfast and other parts of the British Empire. If they broke each others heads it was only only a way they had got, but if they thought they were going to benefit trade by pursuing the Mullah all over the place they were very much mistaken. Ireland had just asked for £3,000 as a grant towards technical education. Not long ago men were running up and down the country telling us that the time for economy had arrived, that we were a dying race with languishing industries and disappearing trade, and we were told that we must go into competition with the world with new commercial ideas. The policy of the Government was like the policy initiated by Solomon 4,000 years ago, and was correctly described in the words "The eyes of a fool are in the ends of the earth." He did not object to hon. Members paying for their foreign policy out of their own purses, but he did object to the East Coast of Africa being made a sort of enlarged Salisbury Plain, about 1,000 miles long and 70 miles broad, on which our men were sent in a hopeless quest after a religious will-o'-the-wisp who was continually dragging them into difficulties, dangers misery, and suffering, with an objective which did not warrant or justify the policy of the Government in any sense whatever. When they heard so much cheap sympathy expressed for the unemployed he contended that this £2,000,000 would have been better spent on harbours of refuge around the Irish or Scotch Coast or in establishing Charlottenburg schools in different parts of this country. If this Government remained in office they
  1044
  would be told the same thing next year. and the answer would be, "This man must be suppressed." There was no particular evidence that the Mullah had done any great harm; it might be said that he made people slaves, but it did not lie in the mouth of this Government to accuse a wild native religious zealot of treating people badly or of making other people slaves, because the Government had done it themselves and were continuing to do it. Those tribal wars and military expeditions conducted and started mainly when the House of Commons was not in session were not only a scandal to their name but they broke the tradition they professed of treating inferior races kindly, and they involved this country in tremendous expense and a great waste of money. He appealed to the Secretary of State for War to withdraw the troops from this expedition in which there was no honour, glory, or credit. When the right hon. Gentleman was reorganising the Army he might with the money which was being thrown away on this expedition be able to do something better for Tommy Atkins. He protested against the wicked expenditure of money on wanton expeditions.
  MR. RITCHIEthought it was a great pity that language of exaggeration was used in regard to this matter. He was sure that a plain statement of the facts of the case would be sufficient to show how serious was the position we were in in Somaliland, and he was satisfied nobody in that House regretted more than His Majesty's Ministers the size which this expedition had now unfortunately assumed. Notwithstanding what the Secretary for War had said in regard to our responsibilities, he did not believe that His Majesty's Ministers would have entered upon an expedition of this kind if they had dreamt for a moment that it was going to reach its present size. He did not quite agree with his right hon. friend the Secretary for War when he assumed that it was the duty of the Government to enter upon such expeditions as this over such a vast expanse of territory, involving such an enormous outlay of money and loss of life, with regard to every portion of territory which was assumed to be more or less under

  1045
  our protectorate. He thought that was putting it much to high. It was a great pity, he thought, that we should enter as freely as we did on obligations of that kind. He was satisfied that it was very largely true that we ought, as far as possible, to confine our responsibilities to the sea-coast, and not endeavour to undertake obligations in the trackless desert as in this case. The position was not really quite as his right hon. friend suggested, that there was a large number of people under our protection who had been raided and massacred. His recollection was that a large portion of the inhabitants of this territory were rather in sympathy with the Mullah than with us. It was understood when this expedition was entered upon, that we were to drive the Mullah from certain territory which was of service to his cattle and followers, and that having done that we should consider our responsibilities at an end, retire then to our own territory, and endeavour subsequently, by the extension of trade routes, and perhaps of railways, to extend our peaceful influence and so counteract the effect of the Mullah's movements. But he quite saw the original intention, against the will of the Government, had had to be abandoned, and they had had to go further and further in this matter, much beyond what they at one time anticipated. That was the danger of these expeditions, we never could tell when we entered on a small expedition how far we should be drawn on. He quite acknowledged that we could not leave this territory now without inflicting considerable damage on the Mullah. We had inflicted considerable damage already, he understood; and he thought they ought to ask the Government to define to the House what was to be the limit of the expedition to which we were committed. He was rather alarmed at some expressions which fell from his right hon. friend, who seemed to assume that this expedition might possibly go on indefinitely. He did not think that would be satisfactory to the House or the country; and they ought to hear from the Government whether, after having inflicted considerable injury on the Mullah, as we had done, and shown that we were not disposed to accept the
  1046
  situation which was created, a period would be put to this expedition. It would be satisfactory to know that at some not remote period they might look forward to the termination of this very great expense.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he was rather astonished at the speech of his right hon. friend. There had been two definite appeals to the Government from the people under our protection. His right hon. friend agreed to the sending of the first expedition, which was successful in driving the Mullah out of our protectorate. The blow, however, was not a severe one, and the Mullah commenced to raid again. His right hon. friend approved of the second expedition, and that expedition suffered very serious defeat. Was that the time when we ought to have retired?
  MR. RITCHIE: Certainly not.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid they then undertook a third expedition, which was now, he hoped, in process of coming to a fortunate conclusion. [AN HON. MEMBER: What is it going to do?] His right hon. friend suggested that they ought to have brought the expedition to an end at some other period——
  MR. RITCHIEsaid the right hon. Gentleman must really not misinterpret him. He had never disputed the fact that he, along with his colleagues, was responsible for entering upon this expedition; he never disputed the fact that the Government had been driven, necessarily, and very much against their will, far beyond what they originally intended, and that they had no option but to go on. The question he had asked was what was the limit to the expedition which the Government anticipated; because his right hon. friend, in some of his remarks, had seemed to assume that it might go on indefinitely. He had never denied his responsibility, or the duty of the Government to go on with it, although he deplored it, as he, believed the Government did.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he was very glad then to find that they were entirely in agreement. He certainly

  1047
  understood the right hon. Gentleman to have suggested that they ought to have stopped the operations.
  MR. RITCHIE: No.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid they were agreed that the Government had been justified in carrying out the expeditions. He supposed there was no section in that House to whom the necessity of continuing this campaign was more unpalatable than to the Government. It was obvious to everybody concerned, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, that there was no glory or profit in the campaign. As to what was the policy of the Government with regard to Somaliland, he thought it was a matter of plain common sense. The policy of the Government was, and must be, that of anybody else in their position; they were now carrying on this campaign with some anticipation of a favourable result; they hoped to produce such an impression by the disorganisation of the forces of the Mullah as to make it sure that we should not be exposed a fourth time to a recurrence of these attacks. He could not for the life of him understand what was the other point in the operations at which hon. Members recommended they should stop. His right hon. friend did not suggest that they should have stopped when we were defeated; he did not suggest that they should stop now when we had a chance of success. The point, of course, at which they should stop would be when we had achieved success, and secured the safety of those for whom we were responsible. [Cries of "Who are they?"] They were practically the whole of the coast tribes along the northern edge of Somaliland. It would be futile on his part to state an exact time when the operations ought to stop, or when they hoped to achieve success. He did not agree with the hon. Member for Battersea that his reference to Holy Writ was at all relevant in this matter. He thought it would be a bad day for the British Empire when one took the hon. Member's advice.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he did not think the Government could be surprised at this debate. This war had
  1048
  been going on for more than two years. The original Estimate was £250,000, and a great deal of money had been spent since. Now they were presented with a bill for £1,600,000, and according to the Secretary of State for War there was "some anticipation of a favourable result." Did anybody in this House suppose that if the Government had had any idea what the course of the war was going to be they would have entered upon it? And, indeed, there need never have been any war at all but for the mismanagement of the people on the spot. What made the present case so inexcusable was that we had had so many examples in the past of similar wars. We had had protectorate wars on the north-west frontier of India. Wars like the present one had occurred over and over again, in which enormous sums of money had been spent. How long was this war to go on? Would Estimate after Estimate be presented to the House as long as the Mullah was able to keep the field and threaten fresh raids? It must come to an end; and was it not the part of good sense to endeavour to bring it to an end as soon as they possibly could? Was it not a reasonable policy for the Government to make up their mind and let their officials and their generals know that they would not continue this wild chase of the Mullah from oasis to oasis, and that if they did not succeed in catching him in the present trap, these costly expeditions would be abandoned and subsidiary methods, which have been found so useful on the north-west frontier of India, would be adopted to repel the raids of this nimble and active enemy? He believed that the debate would not be futile if it could make the Government realise that these expeditions were useless. It was not from any Party spirit that they desired the Government to change their policy, and put an end once for all to these sources of expenditure.
  MR. BAYLEYsaid he wished to ask whether the Mullah or his friends had made any suggestion, direct or indirect, to our officers in the field of negotiating in any way to bring this war to an end. Was there any chance of our securing the services of any man out in Somaliland

  1049
  who had influence with the Mullah to induce him to come to reasonable terms of peace?
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.)said that on previous occasions he had entered his protest against the whole of the expenditure entailed by this expedition. At the outset he desired to say that when they were dealing with a matter of this kind, which involved the expenditure of millions of the taxpayers' money, they ought not to be treated to any exhibition either of heat or temper from the new Secretary for War. The Irish Members were accustomed to have their protests derided and their actions misrepresented; but he thought it was a new departure for the Secretary of War to rise and with some passion to find fault, not with an Irish Member at all, but with the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer because he ventured to express views not on all-fours with those he entertained. They were at least entitled to have courtesy and not temper displayed in discussions of this kind; and he warned the Minister for War that they were only at the commencement of the session, that the right hon. Gentleman had a great deal of work to get through in connection with his Army Estimates, and that, if they were to have displays of temper, he promised the right hon. Gentleman most faithfully that the discussions of Army affairs would be protracted. He was himself naturally by temperament most peaceably disposed, and it was not very easy to irritate him; but one of the things which did irritate him was, when discussing a question like this, if they were not treated with that calmness of demeanour which certainly ought to characterise a highly placed and not badly paid official. He complained that there seemed to be no settled plan of campaign in reference to this expedition; and he emphasised the fact that whereas when the House was asked in 1901 for a Vote of £200,000, and it was said that that amount might possibly be the last demanded, now they made a demand which ran into millions, and were apparently just as far off seeing the end of this expedition as ever. From the Irish point of view expenditure of this kind was simply and absolutely intolerable.
  1050
  He defied any member of the Government to say how, in any way, England could possibly gain either in prestige, commerce, or reputation, from an expedition of this kind; but, whatever England had to gain, they knew perfectly well that, as far as Ireland was concerned, they had absolutely nothing to gain, though he supposed they would have to pay, in the usual course, their share of the expenditure. England might have a vendetta against the Mullah and might have made up its mind, for the welfare and stability of the Empire, that he should be hunted down; but Ireland had no quarrel of the kind or any serious interest in the matter; and he put it, as man to man, if he were not justified, representing thousands of farmers and poor agricultural labourers in Ireland, in protesting in their names against the expenditure of millions of money in a wild-goose chase in Africa which could bring no credit or honour to England and certainly no good to Ireland. Sometimes the Irish Members were derided because they were not more content and more temperate in their language and more patient. But he was surprised that, in face of the provocation they received in matters of this kind, they maintained the patience they had exhibited from time to time. It was an unfair, an unjust, and a monstrous thing that Ireland should be directly or indirectly charged a single shilling for this expedition. He freely admitted that, as far as he knew the merits of the quarrel, his sympathies were with this unfortunate African native who was being hunted down; but if the Government would undertake that a reduction should be made in respect of Ireland and that it should not be called upon to bear any part of the cost of this war, he would, in spite of his sympathies, let them have the Vote of money without protest. So long, however, as Ireland was charged with any proportion of the cost, they were entitled to make their protest.
  Almost nightly since the session began they had had proof upon proof piled up of the unfair way Ireland was financially treated. They asked for money for educational purposes to improve the industrial life of the country; they had asked—he had done so over and over again, almost humiliating himself—for money

  1051
  in order to improve their coast line and especially their miserable harbours; but they found it almost impossible to get any literal response to their demands, and yet they were asked to come down without demur and vote hundreds of thousands of pounds for the purpose of hunting the Mullah in Somaliland. All he could say was that he would give himself the consolation—a poor one though it was—of protesting as strongly as he could; and the Government certainly should not get the Vote until he told them all he thought about it. They wondered often why the Irish people were not as loyal as other peoples in the Empire to the English connection, and why the Army and Navy were not popular in Ireland. The reason would be found in Votes such as that they were now considering. How could they expect people who did not get the use of a gunboat to protect their fisheries, to exhibit enthusiasm for an expedition such as this. The expedition was making England the laughing-stock of the world. If they wanted to break the power of the Mullah permanently and effectively why did not the Government make their arrangements accordingly? Why did they continue to dribble out small bodies of troops which were cut to pieces by the overwhelming numbers arrayed against them? It was one of the most disgraceful, most lamentable, and most discreditable chapters in the recent history of this country, that brave soldiers and devoted men should be sent on expeditions for which they were not in the slightest degree equipped. Quite recently a number of gallant officers were simply overwhelmed by superior numbers, and their lives were sacrificed to the blundering and bungling of the War Office. That was not the way to conduct an expedition of this kind. If the Government made up their minds to crush the Mullah they should have come to Parliament and said, "This is going to be an expenditure of millions of money it will take a considerable time, we will have to send a large force; will you allow us to do it." Instead of doing that the Government were simply trifling with the question, and when a disaster occurred they simply said they had not calculated the strength of the Mullah and they wanted a little more money and a few more men. Then
  1052
  another disaster occurred, and more men and money were asked for. But even now the Government were unable to say whether there was any prospect of an end being put to those operations. That was not the proper way to conduct such a business. The Government should in the first instance have issued a Blue-book setting forth all the circumstances and stating what they intended to do, and they could then have asked Parliament to sanction the expedition. Instead of that the expedition was entered upon without hon. Members being given an opportunity to vote Aye or No. All they were asked to do was, when blundering and incapacity was shown and when there was disaster and loss of life, to vote millions of money.
  At the beginning of the campaign the then Secretary of State for War said that the Mullah was mad, and that he would be very soon overcome and made to realise the enormity of his offence in endeavouring to defend his own country. Then followed news of about six or seven British officers being slaughtered, and then it was discovered that the Mullah was not quite so mad as had been imagined, and more money was asked for. Now the Committee was asked to believe that this war had been entered on in order to keep faith with certain tribes. Was there ever a more monstrous proposition than that British and Irish taxpayers should be asked to spend millions of money in order that war might be waged against a native chief who had incurred the enmity of other native chiefs. He was rather amused when he heard the Secretary of State say that after all there was some slight prospect of those operations being successful. That was not a very sanguine view nor one which would encourage the House of Commons to sanction the continuance of this expedition. He supposed that the right hon. Gentlemen based his assumption on the statement he made that the Mullah had become somewhat depressed. He himself did not know whether the Mullah was depressed or not at the present time; neither did he care; but if it was possible for the Mullah to know that the right hon. Gentleman was in charge of the military arrangements of this country, so far from depressing him

  1053
  the knowledge would encourage him, because the general consensus of opinion was that bad as the late Secretary of State had been, the present Gentleman from Belfast was in all probability a great deal worse. The first thing necessary for the country, if it wished to be successful in military expeditions, was to put its military affairs into the hands of competent and able men who knew their business, men who would be able to give an adequate statement to the House, and men who, above all, would be able to keep their tempers. He protested, as a private Member, against the exhibition of temper on the part of the Secretary of State when the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer had the audacity not to agree with him. They were coming to a pretty pass when it was not sufficient that a prominent member of the Government should leave the
  Treasury Bench and sit below the Gangway, but that he should be expected never to say a word in opposition to the darlings of the gods, who were now on the Treasury Bench. As far as he was concerned he was in this enviable position, that he had never been in a Cabinet.
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEYrose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to give notice that I will make the Government pay for this over and over again.
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 204; Noes, 137. (Division List No. 20.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Allhusen, Augustus Hen. Eden

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Heath, A. Howard (Hanley)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.)

  Arnold-Forster. Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Denny, Colonel

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Dewar, Sir T. R(Tower Hamlets)

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Hobhouse, Rt Hn H (Somers't, E

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Balcarres, Lord

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Horner, Frederick William

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hoult, Joseph

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christen.)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Mich. Hicks

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Bignold, Arthur

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants., W.)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Bigwood, James

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Blundell. Colonel Henry

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

  Bond, Edward

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Kerr, John

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Bull, William James

  Forster, Henry William

  Lawson, Jn. G. (Yorks., N. R.)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

  Butcher. John George

  Gardner, Ernest

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J.A.(Glasgow)

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Gore, Hn. S.F. Ormsby-(Linc)

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Goschen, Hn. George Joachim

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Cavendish. R. F. (N. Lancs.)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.)

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Greene, Sir E. W (B'ry S Edm'nds)

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc)

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Macdona, John Gumming

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Maconothie, A. W.

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry)

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Harris, Dr. Fredk. R.(Dulwich)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.)

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G (Oxf'd Univ.)

  Milvain, Thomas

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Robertson. Herbert (Hackney)

  Tuff, Charles

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Walrond, Rt. Wn. Sir William H.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A.C.E(Taunton)

  Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne)

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Wilson-Todd, Sir W.H.(Yorks.)

  Pease, Hebt. Pike (Darlington)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R,(Bath)

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Percy, Earl

  Smith, HC(North'mb Tyneside

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Spear, John Ward

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

  Pym, C. Guy

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Stock, James Henry

  and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Stroyan, John

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Newnes, Sir George

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herb. Henry

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Austin, Sir John

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Gilhooly James

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Bell, Richard

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Dowd, John

  Blake, Edward

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Malley, William

  Boland, John

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  O'Mara, James

  Brigg, John

  Harwood, George

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir A. D.

  Partington, Oswald

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Perks, Robert William

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)

  Pirie, Duncan Y.

  Burns, John

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Price, Robert John

  Caldwell, James

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Priestley, Arthur

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Rea, Russell

  Campbell(Bannerman, Sir H.)

  Joyce, Michael

  Reckitt Harold James

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Reddy, M.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Kilbride, Denis

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Crean, Eugene

  Labouchere, Henry

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Crombie, John William

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Leng, Sir John

  Roche, John

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rose, Charles Day

  Delany, William

  Logan, John William

  Runciman, Walter

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)

  Lundon, W.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Sheehy, David

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Elibank, Master of

  M'Kean, John

  Slack, John Bamford

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Mooney, John J.

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Murphy, John

  Sullivan, Donal

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Tennant, Harold John

  1056

  1057

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Woodhouse, Sir J.T(Huddersf'd

  Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

  Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Young, Samuel

  Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

  White, Luke (York. E. R.)

  Voxall, James Henry

  Tomkinson, James

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Toulmin George

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.)

  Wallace, Robert

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Question put accordingly.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 138; Noes, 203. (Division List No. 21.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbt. Henry

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Price, Robert John

  Austin, Sir John

  Harwood, George

  Priestley, Arthur

  Barry, E. (Cork. S.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Rea, Russell

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Reddy, M.

  Bell, Richard

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterfowl)

  Blake, Edward

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Boland, John

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Brigg, John

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Roberts. John Bryn (Eifion)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Roche, John

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Joyce, Michael

  Rose, Charles Day

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Runciman, Walter

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Kilbride, Denis

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Caldwell, James

  Labouchere, Henry

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Leng, Sir John

  Sinclair. John (Forfarshire)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Slack, John Bamford

  Crean, Eugene

  Logan, John William

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Crombie, John William

  Lundon, W.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  McArthur, William (Cornwall)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Delany, William

  M'Kean, John

  Tennant, Harold John

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Devlin. Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Mooney, John J.

  Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Tomkinson, James

  Doogan, P. C.

  Murphy, John

  Toulmin, George

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Elibank, Master of

  Newnes, Sir Ceorge

  Wallace, Robert

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Fenwick, Charles

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

  White, Luke (York. E. R.)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  O' Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Donnell. John (Mayo, S.)

  Wilson, Fred. W.(Norfolk, Mid.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry W.)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  O' Dowd, John

  Woodhouse, Sir J.T (Huddersf'd)

  Freeman-Thomas. Captain F.

  O' Malley, William

  Young, Samuel

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  O'Mara, James

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Gilhooly, James

  Palmer, Sir Chas, M. (Durham)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Broadhurst and Mr. John Burns.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

  Partington, Oswald

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Perks, Robert William

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.)

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Banbury, Sir Fredrick George

  Allhusen, Augustus Hen. Eden

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Mich. Hicks

  Arnold-Forster. Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bignold, Arthur

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds)

  Bigwood, James

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Bond, Edward

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Heath, A. Howard (Hanley)

  Pym, C. Guy

  Bull, William James

  Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.)

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Garne

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Butcher, John George

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J.A.(Glasgow

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

  Horner, Frederick William

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire)

  Hoult, Joseph

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A (Worc

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Hunt, Rowland

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.)

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Kerr, John

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Colston, Chas, Edw. H. Athole

  Knowles,. Sir Lees

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Lawson, Jn. G. (Yorks., N. R.)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford. East)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Smith, H. C (North'mb Tyneside)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Spear, John Ward

  Denny Colonel

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tower Hamlets)

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.)

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Stock, James Henry

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Stroyan, John

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Macdona, John Gumming

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G (Oxfd Univ.)

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Thornton Percy M.

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants., W.)

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Tuff, Charles

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriessh.)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Milvain, Thomas

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Forster, Henry William

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A.G.E(Taunton)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne)

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Gore, Hn. S.F. Ormsby-(Linc)

  Marton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Mowbray Sir Robert Gray C

  Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Greene, Sir E. W (B'ryS Edm'nds

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Pease, Herbt. Pike (Darlington

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Percy, Earl

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. O'MARAsaid he desired to draw attention to
  1060
  Sub-head B, "Land and Inland Water Transport Abroad, £300,000." On referring to the original Estimate he found that it was only for £115,000

  1061
  Therefore, he could not understand how it came about that a Supplementary Estimate of £300,000, which was more than double the original Estimate, was now being asked for. Surely they ought to get nearer in their Estimates than that. He should like to have some explanation from the Secretary of State for War as to why this Estimate was so large. He remembered last year the Government askedfor£5,000,000 for transport of troops and remounts, but they had not been spending the money on remounts this year, and he should like an explanation as to how this Estimate had grown so large.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he did not know whether his hon. friend intended to mark his disapproval of this Estimate by moving a reduction. but if he did not he should certainly do so himself. It was a most inconvenient and a most disrespectful thing, nearly as disrespectful as moving the closure, that a man who had as good a right to speak as any member of the Government should be closured without a single word of explanation of a satisfactory character in regard to huge Supplementary Estimates like this. He held the opinion that this system of Supplementary Estimates was unsatisfactory and undesirable altogether. He did not know why it was mot possible to make proper Estimates, and have them discussed in the ordinary way, instead of coming down to ask for £2,700,000. That was not the way to conduct the affairs of the country, and he doubted if the Secretary for War could defend a proposition of that kind. He was very much afraid that a great many of these Supplementary Estimates were suddenly sprung upon Parliament in the hope that they might somehow or other get quietly through without raising any particular discussion, or bring any large amount of criticism to bear upon them. He asked for an explanation as to why this enormous sum was being asked for. He had been in the House for a longer time than the Secretary of State for War, who was now a member of the Cabinet, but he would not take the amount of this Estimate to join the present Cabinet, because, after all, one must draw the line somewhere. He asked the right hon.
  1062
  Gentleman to make inquiries, and he would find that it was not usual to propose Supplementary Estimates for such enormous sums without some explanation. The system seemed to have grown of putting on Supplementary Votes items which must have been anticipated when the ordinary Estimates were framed, and therefore they were entitled to some explanation. The way to get these Estimates through, and to occupy only a reasonable time with them, was to have a little patience.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Is the hon. Member now addressing himself to the whole Vote?
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he was addressing himself to Vote 6, Item B, relating to Land and Inland Water Transport Abroad.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I would ask the hon. Member to confine his remarks to that item. I am afraid be has been wandering a great deal beyond that.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid that perhaps the most concise way in which he could bring his attention and the attention of the House to this particular item of £300,000 was to move a reduction of £100,000. Matters would be facilitated if there was a little more patience and the closure was not used in an offensive way.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not entitled to reflect upon the action of the Committee. The closure is not the action of a particular Member but the action of the Committee.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he was not reflecting on the Chairman's discretion in accepting the closure nor upon the action of the House, but he referred to the individual action of one hon. Gentleman.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not entitled to do that. It is a well-known Rule of the House, which has been

  1063
  laid down over and over again, that when once the House has decided upon the closure no Member is entitled to go back and reflect upon the action of the House or upon the Member who has moved the closure. [AN HON. MEMBER: We will fight it every time it comes up.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item, Vote 6, Sub-head B (Land and Inland Water Transport Abroad), be reduced by £100,000."—(Mr. William Redmond.)
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid that a very large porton of this Estimate came under the same explanation that he had given before, for it had to do with the charges for the conveyance of building material in South Africa, which, owing to a mistake, had been omitted from the original Estimate. About half of the items for land transport abroad was for the conveyance of building materials, and the other was mainly due to the large quantity of stores that had to be moved about.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid there had already been a little omission of £200,000 in the original Estimate, and here was another little item of £300,000 which had also been overlooked. This was another item which their officers in South Africa had forgotten and which could not be included in the original Estimates, because the War Office did not find it out. It was almost futile to discuss an Estimate of this kind.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEwanted to know at what rate these materials had been conveyed. The amount charged was very large indeed. It was brought out during the war that the rate was one-third of a penny per mile and it was subsequently reduced to one-fourth of a penny per mile.
  And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  The Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

  SUPPLY.

    ARMY (SUPPLEMENTARY) ESTIMATES, 1903–4.
    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 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

    Total

    £6,130,000

    Excess Appropriations in Aid (Votes 1, 6, 7, 9, and 10).

    £3,430,000

    £2,700,000

    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid he understood an Amendment had been moved to reduce the Vote by £100,000.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid an Amendment always dropped when progress was reported.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid in that case he should move the reduction of the Vote by £10,000 in respect of the item for Land and Inland Water Transport Abroad.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item, Vote 6, Sub-head B (Land and Inland Water Transport Abroad), be reduced by £10,000."—(Mr. Charles Hobhouse.)
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTstated that he had already said everything he could say in regard to this

    1065
    Vote. He had endeavoured to explain why it was necessary for the Government to bring forward a Supplementary Estimate.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. FLYNNsaid he was emboldened by the result of the last
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 74; Noes, 88. (Division List No. 22.)

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Joyce, Michael

    Rea, Russell

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Brigg, John

    Labonchere, Henry

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

    Roche, John

    Caldwell, James

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Rose, Charles Day

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    Lundon, W.

    Runciman, Walter

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Crean, Eugene

    M'Hugh, Patrick A.

    Sheehy, David

    Crombie, John William

    M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)

    Mansfield, Horace Rendall

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

    Mooney, John J.

    Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Murphy, John

    Stevenson, Francis S.

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Sullivan, Donal

    Doogan, P. C.

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth South)

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

    Fenwick, Charles

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

    O' Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

    Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Flynn, James Christopher

    O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

    O'Dowd, John

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Fuller, J. M. F.

    O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)

    Gilhooly, James

    O'Mara, James

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Charles Hobhouse and Mr. Whitley.

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Perks, Robert William

    NOES.

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Pym, C. Guy

    Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

    Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich)

    Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Heath, A. Howard (Hanley)

    Richards, Henry Charles

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.)

    Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.)

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    Bartley, Sir George C. T.

    Hickman, Sir Alfred

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Mich. Hicks

    Hoare, Sir Samuel

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Bignold, Arthur

    Hunt, Rowland

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Bigwood, James

    Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

    Sloan, Thomas Henry

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Kerr, John

    Smith, H. C (North'mbTyneside)

    Bull, William James

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Spear, John Ward

    Butcher, John George

    Lawson, Jn. G. (Yorks., N. R.)

    Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.A(Worc)

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Stock, James Henry

    Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

    Llewellyn, Evan Henry

    Stroyan, John

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

    Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Davenport, William Bromley

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

    Tuff, Charles

    Denny, Colonel

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Valentia, Viscount

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

    Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

    Milvain, Thomas

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne)

    Doxford, Sir William Theodore

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Newdegate, Francis A. N.

    Wylie, Alexander

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

    Percy, Earl

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

    Forster, Henry William

    Plummer, Walter R.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    division and from a sense of duty to continue the examination of the Estimates now before the Committee. He hoped that on every possible occasion hon.

    1067
    Members would by their votes mark their protest against the recklessness and improvidence of the expenditure indicated by the present Estimates. He remembered when a Supplementary Estimate was a most unusual thing, but now almost every item of the original Estimates was exceeded. Why was such a large sum as £60,000 required for Sea Transport in time of peace? What was the charter price of the vessels, what was the number of men, and what was the quantity of material conveyed? The Financial Secretary to the War Office had admitted that he could not explain these things because he was new to the office he held. Child as the hon. Gentleman was in these matters, he hoped he would be able to give the Committee a satisfactory explanation why such a large sum was required in addition to the original Estimate. These excess charges were occurring in almost every branch of the service, and when Supplementary Estimates were presented the Government carried them by an automatic majority of Members who flocked in from the smoking room when the divisions were called. He moved to reduce the Vote by £10,000.
    Motion made, and Question proposed. "That Item. Vote 6, Sub-head C (Sea Transport), be reduced by £10,000."—(Mr. Flynn.)
    MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid he could not agree with the hon. Member that £60,000 was a large amount for Sea Transport, having regard to the conditions of sea transport. He could understand that this amount might be justified. At the same time he was willing to admit that sea transport was a subject that lent itself to an infinite variety of treatment. It would
    have been very much better if the item had been more accurately described, and if the countries from which the transport was carried out had been specified on the Estimate. He asked the Financial Secretary to state from what portion of the British Empire the sea transport took place, because, unless the Committee got some particular information, it was evident that they might occupy the whole evening discussing the places from which sea transport might take place. Between what ports did the steamers sail, and at what prices were they chartered. He should like to lay considerable emphasis on that point. He wished especially to know at what rates the vessels were chartered seeing that the freight market was in a more or less depressed condition at the present moment. If no satisfactory information on these points was forthcoming, the words "Sea Transport" lent themselves to great prolixity.
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid he was very glad to be able to satisfy his hon. friend. All the sea transport was from South Africa. The Supplementary Estimate became necessary because, as he had already explained, the moving home of a number of troops had been deferred to a later period than was originally intended.
    MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR: Can my hon. friend give the rate per net or gross registered tonnage?
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: I am sorry I cannot.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 85;. Noes, 114. (Division List No. 23.)

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Crean, Eugene

    Freeman-Thomas. Captain F.

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Crombie, John William

    Fuller, J. M. F.

    Bell, Richard

    Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

    Gilhooly, James

    Boland, John

    Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Brigg, John

    Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Doogan, P. C.

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Fenwick, Charles

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Caldwell, James

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

    Joyce. Michael

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Kilbride, Denis

    Campbell- Bannerman, Sir H.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Labouchere, Henry

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    O' Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)

    Sullivan. Donal

    Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

    O' Mara, James

    Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Perks, Robert William

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

    Lundon, W.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Rea, Russell

    Toulmin, George

    M'Hugh, Patrick A.

    Reddy, M.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

    Mansfield Horace Kendall

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

    Mooney, John J.

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Murphy, John

    Roche, John

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Rose, Charles Day

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Runciman, Walter

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Yoxall, James Henry

    O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

    Sheehy, David

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Flynn and Mr. Charles Hobhouse.

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo. S.)

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    O' Donnell, T. (Kerry. W.)

    Slack, John Bamford

    O'Dowd, John

    Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants)

    NOES.

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

    Groves, James Grimble

    Pym, C. Guy.

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry)

    Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

    Ratcliff, R. F.

    Baird, John George Alexander

    Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich)

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Richards, Henry Charles

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds)

    Heath, A. Howard (Hanley)

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

    Heath, James (Stafford., N. W.)

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Hickman, Sir Alfred

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Bartley, Sir George C. T.

    Hoare, Sir Samuel

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

    Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Mich. Hicks

    Howard, J. (Kent. Faversham)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Bignold, Arthur

    Hunt, Rowland

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Bigwood, James

    Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

    Sloan, Thomas Henry

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Kerr, John

    Smith, H.C. (North'mb'Pyneside)

    Bull, William James

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Spear, John Ward

    Butcher, John George

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Lawson, Jn. G. (Yorks., N.R.)

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

    Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire)

    Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

    Stock, James Henry

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Stroyan, John

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A (Wore)

    Llewellyn, Evan Henry

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

    Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

    Tuff, Charles

    Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Valentia, Viscount

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

    Davenport, William Bromley

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Denny, Colonel

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Milvain, Thomas

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

    Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

    Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.

    Doxford, Sir William Theodore

    Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Wylie, Alexander

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

    Finlay Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Newdegate, Francis A.N.

    Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

    Nicholson, William Graham

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

    Forster, Henry William

    Pease, Herbt. Pike (Darlington)

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Percy, Earl

    and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Plummer, Walter R.

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. FLYNNsaid that they had got no account whatever from the Secretary for War as to whether this Vote included the cost of the expedition to Tibet.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! This is a Vote for the China Expeditionary Force alone.
    MR. FLYNNsaid he intended to give a geographical account of Tibet, but, of

    1071
    course, he would not go on that line of route if it was irrelevant. What he wanted to know was the reason for the enormous discrepancy between the original Estimate and the present one. The Committee was entitled to a full and satisfactory explanation from the Secretary of State for War or from the Financial Secretary to the War Office. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £10,000.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item, Vote 6, Sub-head E (China Expeditionary Force, Transport and Remounts), be reduced by £10,000."—(Mr. Flynn.)
    MR. O'MARAsaid that, in seconding the Motion, he wished to express his amazement at the carelessness with which this Estimate had been drawn up. Instead of the Estimates being introduced in a proper and businesslike way, they were asked to vote in a hurried way, with the closure applied, these large sums. That was reducing the control of the House of Commons over expenditure to a farce. Under Appropriation in aid, under the same Sub-head, there was an item, "Proceeds of sale of horses, and other cast animals, £1,000,000." Had these accounts come in yet? The War Office must really know how much the rubbish of this Expedition had realised. Had it realised exactly £1,000,000?
    THE CHAIRMANsaid that the Appropriation in aid did not arise on this item. It had nothing to do with the China Expeditionary Force. The deduction referred to by the hon. Member did not come under Sub-head E, but Subhead G, of the Appropriation Vote. The misprint of E for G was obvious.
    MR. O'MARAsaid that the Committee were not responsible for the printing of the Estimates. It was a monstrous way to put the business of the country before the House, because it led to great misunderstanding. The consideration of these Estimates ought to be postponed to allow the War Office to put a proper Paper before hon. Members. A Department which had the spending of
    1072
    £30,000,000, or £40,000,000 surely ought to have a clerk to read the proofs of the Papers before they were submitted to the House. It was scandalous the way in which information was given to the Committee, and the manner in which these different items were mixed up was another proof of the utter inefficiency of the War Office.
    Mr. JOSEPH DEVLIN Mr. JOSEPH DEVLIN (Kilkenny, N.) moved, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again;" but the CHAIRMAN, being of opinion that the Motion was an abuse of the Rules of the House, declined to propose the Question thereupon to the Committee.
    Question again proposed, "That Item, Vote 6, Sub-head E (China Expeditionary Force, Transport and Remounts), be reduced by £10,000."
    MR. MACVEAGHasked if it was open to move the Adjournment in order to give hon. Members an opportunity to see a correct Paper?
    THE CHAIRMAN: It is also open to the Chair to refuse to accept such a Motion.
    MR. O'MARAasked, on a point of order, how they could continue the debate on an incorrect Paper.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid that the mistake did not signify, and the hon. Member was not misled. He would not be entitled to refer to the Appropriation in aid when the China Expeditionary Force was under discussion.
    MR. CHARLES DEVLINsaid that the Supplementary Estimate was double the original, so that evidently the latter was absolutely misleading. Who made out the Estimates? Was it the Minister in charge of the Department, or was it some official? They noticed that as one Minister went out a new Minister came in, and, if all reports were true, there was seemingly no difficulty at all about that in view of the number of applications to fill the position. What he would like to know was, how and where this money was spent? Were the troops employed in China all British;

    1073
    were they white troops, for after all the declared and avowed policy of the Government was Imperialistic? They declared chat they were the pillars of the Empire; that they held up the Empire; and that they hoped to bring the Colonies together. In bringing troops to China, did they bring all British troops?
    THE CHAIRMANsaid that that had nothing whatever to do with the Vote; and he invited the hon. Gentleman to give his attention to the question under discussion.
    MR. CHARLES DEVLINsaid he was discussing the transport of troops to
    China; perhaps he was wrong in doing that, and he might be right if he would take up the next question—that of remounts. Where were these remounts bought, and what was the price paid for them?
    Mr. Secretary ARNOLD-FORSTERrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put,"
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 137; Noes, 98. (Division List No. 24.)

    AYES.

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry)

    Percy, Earl

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Harris, F. Leverton (Tynetn'th)

    Pilkington, Colonel Richard

    Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

    Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich)

    Plummer, Walter R.

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Heath, A. Howard (Hanley)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Baird, John George Alexander

    Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.)

    Pym, C. Guy

    Balcarres, Lord

    Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford. W.)

    Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds)

    Hickman, Sir Alfred

    Ratcliff, R. F.

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Chrstch.)

    Hoare, Sir Samuel

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Hogg, Lindsay

    Richards, Henry Charles

    Bartley, Sir George C. T.

    Hoult, Joseph

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Mich. Hicks

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    Bignold, Arthur

    Howard, J. (Kent, Favershain)

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Bigwood, James

    Hunt, Rowland

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Kerr, John

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Bull, William James

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Sloan, Thomas Henry

    Butcher, John George

    Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth)

    Smith Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Smith, H. C. (North'mb Tyneside)

    Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire)

    Lawson, Jn. G. (Yorks., N. R.)

    Spear, John Ward

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

    Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.A (Worc

    Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Stock, James Henry

    Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

    Stroyan, John

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Llewellyn, Evan Henry

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

    Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Dalkeith Earl of

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

    Tuff, Charles

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Lyttelton, Rt Hon. Alfred

    Valentia, Viscount

    Davenport, William Bromley

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

    Denny, Colonel

    Maconochie, A.W.

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

    Digby John K. D. Wingfield-

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriesshr

    Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne)

    Doxford, Sir William Theodore

    Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

    Willox, Sir John Archibald

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    Milvain, Thomas

    Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.

    Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

    Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Finch, Rt Hon. George H.

    Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

    Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks.)

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)

    Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

    Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

    Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

    Flaunery, Sir Fortescue

    Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

    Wylie, Alexander

    Forster, Henry William

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Gardner, Ernest

    Newdegate, Francis A. N.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Groves, James Grimble

    Pease, Herbt. Pike (Darlington)

    and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

    Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

    Reckitt, Harold James

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

    Reddy, M.

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Bell, Richard

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Boland, John

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Brigg, John

    Joyce, Michael

    Roche, John

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Kilbride, Denis

    Rose, Chares Day

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Labouchere, Henry

    Runciman, Walter

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Layland- Barratt, Francis

    Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Caldwell, James

    Leng, Sir John

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Sheehy, David

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Lundon, W.

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Crean, Eugene

    M'Hugh, Patrick A.

    Slack, John Bamford

    Crombie, John William

    M'Kean, John

    Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants)

    Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

    M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

    Stevenson, Francis S.

    Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)

    Mansfield, Horace Rendall

    Sullivan, Donal

    Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

    Mooney, John J.

    Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

    Doogan, P. C.

    Murphy, John

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

    Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

    Fenwick, Charles

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Toulmin, George

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

    O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

    Flynn, James Christopher

    O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

    White, Luke (York. E. R.)

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    O'Dowd, John

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

    O'Mara, James

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Fuller, J. M. F.

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Gilhooly, James

    Perks, Robert William

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Rea, Russell

    Question put accordingly.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 104; Noes, 150. (Division List No. 25.)

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

    Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

    O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Fuller, J. M. F.

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

    Bell, Richard

    Gilhooly, James

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Boland, John

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

    O' Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

    Brigg, John

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    O' Dowd, John

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O' Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

    O'Mara, James

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)

    Perks, Robert William

    Caldwell, James

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Campbell, Bannerman, Sir H.

    Joyce, Michael

    Rea, Russell

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Kilbride, Denis

    Reckett, Harold James

    Crean, Eugene

    Labouchere, Henry

    Reddy, M.

    Crombie, John William

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

    Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

    Leng, Sir John

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

    Lundon, W.

    Roche, John

    Doogan, P. C.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Rose, Charles Day

    Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

    M'Hugh, Patrick A.

    Runciman, Walter

    Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

    M'Kean, John

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Fenwick, Charles

    M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

    Mansfield Horace Rendall

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Mooney, John J.

    Sheehy, David

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Murphy, John

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Slack, John Bamford

    Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants)

    Toulmin, George

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Stevenson, Francis S.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Sullivan, Donal

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

    Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

    Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

    Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

    Tomkinson, James

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    NOES.

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry)

    Percy, Earl

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

    Pilkington, Colonel Richard

    Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

    Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich)

    Plummer, Walter R.

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Baird, John George Alexander

    Heath, A. Howard (Hanley)

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Balcarres, Lord

    Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.)

    Pym, C. Guy

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. B. W. (Leeds)

    Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

    Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.)

    Hickman, Sir Alfred

    Ratcliff, R. F.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Hoare, Sir Samuel

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Bartley, Sir George C. T.

    Hogg, Lindsay

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Mich. Hicks

    Hoult, Joseph

    Richards, Henry Charles

    Bignold, Arthur

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Bigwood, James

    Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Hunt, Rowland

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

    Bull, William James

    Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Butcher, John George

    Kerr, John

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Sloan, Thomas Henry

    Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

    Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth)

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Lawrence, Wm. P. (Liverpool)

    Smith, H.C. (North'mb Tyneside)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A (Worc)

    Lawson, Jn. G. (Yorks, N.R.)

    Spear, John Ward

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Lee, A H. (Hants. Fareham)

    Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

    Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

    Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Stock, James Henry

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

    Stroyan, John

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Llewellyn, Evan Henry

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

    Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

    Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol S.)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Ed. M.

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

    Tuff, Charles

    Davenport, William Bromley

    Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Denny, Colonel

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Macdona, John Gumming

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A Akers-

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Doxford, Sir William Theodore

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

    Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne)

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    Manners, Lord Cecil

    Willox, Sir John Archibald

    Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

    Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriessh.)

    Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.

    Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

    Milner, Rt Hn. Sir Frederick G.

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Milvain, Thomas

    Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H.(Yorks.)

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Montagu G. (Huntingdon)

    Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R.(Bath)

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

    Worthy, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

    Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Wylie, Alexander

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Forster, Henry William

    Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

    Wyndham-Quin, Major, W. H.

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Gardner, Ernest

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

    Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc)

    Newdegate, Francis A. N.

    Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

    Nicholson, William Graham

    and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Pease, Herbt. Pike (Darlington)

    Groves, James Grimble

    Pemberton, John S. G.

    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid that this item of £700,000 included the purchase of remounts. He noticed in the papers a paragraph from Reuter's correspondent stating that in Somaliland camels
    1078
    had been purchased at elastic prices. He thought they were entitled to have some explanation as to how this vast sum of £700,000 had been spent upon transport and remounts. Everybody knew that in this expedition the question of transport had been from first to last the crux of the

    1079
    situation. It had been exceedingly difficult to move troops from post to post but he did not think there was any excuse for such a wastage of animals as was represented by this large sum. He wished to know what number of transport animals was included in this £700,000. During the late Boer war they were constantly told that it was impossible to give the price at which the transport animals were bought, but in the end they were presented with a bill of £15,500,000. With regard to this expedition over £1,000,000 had been spent in transport already, and they ought to have some details of this expenditure. Who was responsible for this expenditure? Were the remounts being bought by the Indian or the British Remount and Transport Department, and upon what system were they bought? Were they bought through the medium of large contractors or haphazard on the spot by advertisement? He wished to know whether economical methods had been adopted and he wanted some general information.
    MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid the sum under this head was a very large one, although nobody could be surprised that the cost of transport in this campaign was very large. This was not merely a question of what they had spent upon transport, but as to what they were going to spend, and the expenditure of the future was certain to be very large. The item as it was now presented to them, was about three times the estimated cost of the whole campaign, and it would continue to be one of their largest items of expenditure. The Secretary of State for War had said he had some expectation of a favourable result, but he could not prophesy as to what the course of events would be, and they were, therefore, pursuing what might be an interminable expenditure, and this would have a very bad effect upon public opinion. He was satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon had represented that night the common sense of the country upon the Somaliland campaign. He also believed that the right hon. Gentleman in the views he had expressed represented
    1080
    the views of the majority of the House of Commons and he felt certain that he represented the views of the great majority of people outside the House. This expedition was regarded as a purposeless campaign which offered no hope of termination within a reasonable period, and it was being waged with very little hope of a satisfactory result.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has no right to go into the policy of the campaign except so far as it refers to transport and remounts.
    MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid he merely referred to the size of this item for remounts as an example of the need that there was for some far more specific statement of policy than they had yet received from the War Office, to justify what was a very unsatisfactory campaign.
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid it was quite true that the Supplementary Estimates were three times the size of the original Estimates, but it should not be forgotten that the original Estimate was based on the assumption that the campaign would have come to an end much earlier. Hon. Members opposite would admit that the whole House had by a majority approved of the campaign, and the only question now before them was whether they would vote the necessary supplies. Ho did not feel so much concerned about the arguments as to the policy, but what did concern him was the fact that they were at war and the troops must be properly supplied well fed, well armed, and well equipped. The House having approved of the policy, it was now asked to vote the necessary supplies. He had been asked how the sum of £700,000 required for transport and remounts was distributed. In respect of £400,000 it represented the transport of troops, animals, and stores from India to the seat of war, and the balance of £300,000 represented, for the most part, the purchase of transport animals, both locally and by the Indian Government. He believed the number of animals—camels, horses, and mules—was about 19,000. They had cost, therefore, an average of about £16 each. He did not

    1081
    know that unnecessarily high prices had been paid.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid he did not think the hon. Member could expect them to be quite satisfied with that explanation.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: We are not satisfied at all.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid he agreed with the hon. Member that if they were going on with this campaign it would be most foolish extravagance not to provide the Army with proper equipment. What the hon. Member did not tell them was upon what system this large amount of transport had been bought. From their experience in the last war in South Africa, they knew that it made all the difference in the world as to how they bought the animals. They had most startling disclosures during the Boer war as to the purchase of remounts, and what guarantee had they that something of the same sort had not been perpetrated in this case. He understood that in India a complete system of information had been organised, and that the Government bought through large contractors, rejecting animals which were not up to the proper standard. Had that method been adopted, or had we gone on under the old system of buying leisurely through dealers, which obtained under the British Remount Department in connection with the War Office? Those were points upon which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury had said nothing, and, while he was very unwilling to move a reduction, to put himself on the safe side, he would move that the Vote be reduced by £100 in order to get an effective answer from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item, Vote 6, Sub-head F (Somaliland Expeditionary Force, Transport and Remounts), be reduced by £100."—(Mr. Charles Hobhouse.)
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid if the hon. Gentleman was satisfied with the Indian system he might withdraw his Motion. The campaign was being managed and conducted under the Indian Government out of funds provided by the War Department. He was
    1082
    not himself responsible for the conduct of the campaign. The animals were being purchased by the Indian Government, and presumably under the system which the hon. Member approved.
    MR. FLYNNcomplained that the estimate was originally only £100,000. Who outside Bedlam would have expected to see the Estimate swollen from £100,000 to £800,000. He remembered reading some of the detailed accounts of the expedition against the Mad Mullah—he was rather inclined to think the word "Mad" should be transferred from the the Mullah to the War Office. He could not forget having read that we were so unprepared for the expedition on which we had entered that the wily dervishes took the opportunity to sell us their camels at enhanced prices. Clearly the Indian Government had failed to take the proper precautions to secure a supply of transport animals. There was too much elasticity in this Estimate—indeed, to describe as elastic an increase of eight times the original Estimate was to abuse the word; it was something more than elastic.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDcomplained that although they had been told that the campaign was being conducted by the Indian Government, yet they had not had a single, solitary word from the Secretary for India to show that he took the slightest interest in the matter. He could not admit that the House of Commons had accepted the responsibility for this war. At every stage in connection with the proceedings most vigorous and emphatic protests had been entered against the operations by Members of the House. Even the majority could not be said to have authorised the expenditure.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is now travelling a long way from the Vote before the Committee.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he recognised that the right hon. Gentleman was anxious to conduct the proceedings in the fairest possible way, but he submitted that he was only making a legitimate reply to a statement from the

    1083
    Government Benches as to the responsibility of the House of Commons.
    THE CHAIRMAN: That was the reason why I did not interrupt the hon. Member before. I now invite him to give his attention to the item before the Committee.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I am very much obliged for your kindly invitation. I am most anxious to pay the closest attention in my power to the Vote. The hon. Member then went on to state that his objection to the item was that the House sanctioned the expedition on the understanding that £100,000 would be sufficient for transport, yet now the heads of the War Office came down and said, "We have made a little mistake; we ought to have asked for £800,000 for transports in this wretched, miserable war in Somaliland." Would hon. Members have so cheerfully voted money for the war had they known that the expenditure on that would have been so enormously increased? This one item was an illustration of the whole policy of the Government in the matter. Nobody knew where we were being led to. Was it unreasonable for hon. Members representing Ireland to ask for a plain and clear indication as to what was in the minds of the authorities with regard to this protracted campaign? Were they to anticipate any further increases of expenditure?
    THE CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. Member has forgotten my invitation. I must renew my invitation to him to confine himself strictly to the item now before the Committee.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I certainly had not forgotten you, Sir, and I hope I never shall.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERrose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is about to bring his observations to a close, therefore for the present I will not accept the Motion.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: You are perfectly correct, Sir. It is a good thing
    1084
    for the good order and good temper of the debate that you are in the chair instead of a gentleman so impatient that he will not allow anybody to criticise, even for five minutes, the Department for which he is reponsible. In conclusion, the hon. Member asked if the ratepayers were ever to get rid of the nightmare of that miserable, inglorious, and futile expedition? Was it in accordance with ancient usage that such Supplementary Estimates should be put down without any explanation at all? He claimed that they ought to protest by dividing against that system of enormously increased Supplementary Estimates and also against a war, commenced by the Foreign Office, muddled by the War Office but managed by the India Office, the representative of which had not deigned to say a word in regard to it.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUELasked if the Government had taken every possible step to secure the utmost economy in this matter. In the Report of the Royal Commission on the South African War was the evidence of several witnesses who recommended the appointment of financial advisers to be attached to future expeditions in order to advise the General Commanding and to have an oversight over questions of contracting and accountancy. Had that course been followed in the present instance?
    MR. LOUGHinquired if the sum now asked for covered any estimated expenditure beyond the 31st March?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERreplied that the purchases were made in this case in Aden and India, and there was consequently no necessity to attach a financial adviser to the staff of the commander of the expedition. In reply to the hon. Member for Islington, of course only expenditure to the 31st March was covered by the Estimate.
    MR. FLYNNsaid his information was that the bulk of the camels were purchased at the seat of war.
    MR. FLAVINcomplained of the unsatisfactory character of the Government explanations.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 120; Noes, 169; (Division List No. 26)

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

    Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

    Reddy, M.

    Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herb. Henry

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Barry, B. (Cork, S.)

    Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Beaumont, Wentworth, C. B.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Bell, Richard

    Joyce, Michael

    Roche, John

    Blake, Edward

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Rose, Charles Day

    Boland, John

    Kilbride, Denis

    Runciman, Walter

    Brigg, John

    Labouchere, Henry

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Layland- Barratt, Francis

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Leigh, Sir Joseph

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Leng, Sir John

    Sheehy, David

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Lough, Thomas

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Caldwell, James

    Lundon, W.

    Slack, John Bamford

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Stevenson, Francis S.

    Crean, Eugene

    M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Sullivan, Donal

    Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

    M'Hugh, Patrick A.

    Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

    Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

    M'Kean, John

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Delany, William

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

    Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)

    Mansfield, Horace Rendall

    Tomkinson, James

    Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

    Mooney, John J.

    Toulmin, George

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Doogan, P. C.

    Murphy, John

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

    Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

    Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    White, George (Norfolk)

    Fenwick, Charles

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Flynn, James Christopher

    O'Dowd, John

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

    O'Malley, William

    Woodhouse, Sir J.T (Hudd'rsf'd

    Fuller, J. M. F.

    O' Mara, James

    Young, Samuel

    Gilhooly, James

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

    Partington, Oswald

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Perks, Robert William

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Charles Hobhouse and Sir Joseph Leese.

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Priestley, Arthur

    Harmsworth, R. (Leicester)

    Rea, Russell

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Reckitt, Harold James

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Bond, Edward

    Davenport, W. Bromley-

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Bowles, Lt.-Col. H.F. (Middlesex

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Allhusen, Augustus Hen. Eden

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Bull, William James

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

    Butcher, John George

    Doxford, Sir William Theodore

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derby shire)

    Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

    Baird, John George Alexander

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Worc.

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds)

    Give, Captain Percy A.

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christeh.)

    Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

    FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

    Bartley, Sir George C. T.

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Mich. Hicks

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Forster, Henry William

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

    Fyler, John Arthur

    Bignold, Arthur

    Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Bigwood, James

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets)

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Gore, Hn G. R.C. Ormsby-(Salop)

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

    Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Grenfell, William Henry

    Macdona, John Gumming

    Sloan, Thomas Henry

    Groves, James Grimble

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

    Smith, H. C (North'mb, Tyneside)

    Hamilton, Marq of (L'donderry)

    Manners, Lord Cecil

    Spear, John Ward

    Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

    Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriesshire)

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Harris, Dr. Fredk. E. (Dulwich)

    Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.)

    Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

    Milvain, Thomas

    Stock, James Henry

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

    Stroyan, John

    Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley)

    Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow)

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Heath, J antes (Staffords., N. W.)

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.)

    Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.)

    Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

    Mount, William Arthur

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Hickman, Sir Alfred

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

    Tollemache, Henry James

    Hoare, Sir Samuel

    Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham (Bute

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Hogg, Lindsay

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Tuff, Charles

    Hoult, Joseph

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Newdegate, Francis A. N.

    Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

    Howard, John(Kent Faversham)

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

    Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir William H.

    Hunt, Rowland

    Pemberton, John S. G.

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

    Percy, Earl

    Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne)

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Pilkington, Colonel Richard

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.)

    Plummer, Walter R.

    Willox, Sir John Archibald

    Kerr, John

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Wilson-Todd, Sir W.H.(Yorks.)

    Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th)

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R. (Bath)

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Pym, C. Guy

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. N.R)

    Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

    Wylie, Alexander

    Lee, Arthur H.(Hants., Fareham)

    Ratcliff, R. F.

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

    Llewellyn, Evan Henry

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham)

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S.)

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. BUCHANANremarked that various explanations had been given with regard to the item of £900,000 for Imperial railways, the latest, and probably the best considered and most accurate, being that these railways in the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony were taken and worked by the military authorities during the war, that they were worked by them on their own account to 31st March, 1902, and on the colonial account until 30th June, 1902; that so far as working expenses during that period were concerned, there was nothing included in the Vote; and that during their occupation the military spent large sums of money in improving the lines and purchasing rolling-stock. All this expenditure took place
    1088
    before 31st March, because anything after that date would have been debited to the colonial Government. Apparently the House of Commons was never informed of he matter, as no entry of the expenditture appeared on the Estimates, unless, as had been suggested, it was included in the item of £350,000 for stores supplied from stock. If that suggestion was correct, he did not think it was a fair or frank method of bringing so important a matter before the House. It further appeared that this money was carried to, and kept for two years in, a Suspense Account. That was a somewhat unusual course, and he desired to know whether it had the sanction of the Treasury; if so, whether there was no limit as to the amount for, and the time which, such a suspense account could be carried on. As to the counter-claim the

    1089
    Committee was entitled to know on what basis it was made up, and on what foundation the expectation that the bulk of the money would be refunded by the Transvaal was raised. Further, was the £1,000,000 expected from the Transvaal, the £1,000,000 due under the South African Loan Act of last year, or was it the sum expected to be paid in respect of the expenditure on the lines during their occupation by the military authorities? In order to elicit a reply on these points he moved to reduce the Vote by £5,000.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item, Vote 6, Sub-head BB (South Africa, Expenditure in connection with Imperial Military Railways), be reduced by £5,000."—(Mr. Buchanan.)
    SIR EDGAR VINCENTasked from what source this £900,000 was obtained. It appeared to be admitted that in or before 1902, a sum of either £900,000 or £1,230,000 had been paid on account of the railways in South Africa. No Vote had been taken in the House to justify the expenditure, and no mention of the payment appeared in the Finance Accounts of 1902 or 1903. It came as a great shock to him to learn that so large a sum as £900,000 could be paid without any authority from Parliament, and without any mention in the financial accounts of the year that such a payment had been made. Was this payment included in the Exchequer issues for Army Services in 1902 or 1903? If it was, he did not understand the necessity for a Supplementary Estimate now. If it was not so included, the natural conclusion was that money voted for totally different purposes had been diverted to this, and unless some explanation could be given, their confidence in the
    1090
    whole system of accounts must be considerably shaken. There certainly appeared to have been a breach of the rules of sound financial administration.
    SIR JOSEPH LEESEunderstood that this sum of £900,000 had been spent by the Imperial Government on the railways, and that there was an obligation on the part of somebody to repay the money, but that it was not repaid because something in the nature of a counter-claim had been set up. That being so, he desired to ask what were the particulars of the counter-claim, was it simply a case of unliquidated damages? Who were the parties to the issue, and by what tribunal was the case to be tried?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,)said the last point had already been answered. ["No." He did not know whether the hon. Member for Accrington attached value to the legal phraseology in which he couched his inquiries.
    SIR JOSEPH LEESEsaid that what he wanted to know was who made the counter-claim, and what were its details?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINexplained that there was a claim for a sum of money now on the Votes, a claim which, after this Vote was passed, remained unaffected, on the part of the Government of this country against the Government of the Colony. There was a counterclaim by the Government of the Colony, which was not admitted by His Majesty's Government, for wear and tear and damage to the railways while in the possession

    1091
    or occupation of the military authorities. His object in rising, however, was not to repeat an explanation he had already given, but to reply to the inquiries of the hon. Member for East Perthshire and his hon. friend the Member for Exeter. His hon. friend had asked about the £900,000 expended in improvements to the railways in the colonies and he wished to know from what source that money was obtained. The history of the transaction was this: the military authorities reported that certain additions to railway communications were required for military operations for the war which was then being conducted. They also required additional rolling stock to successfully conclude the war. The Civil Government agreed that these additions would be of value to the Colony when they took over the railways on the re-establishment of peace. They agreed to pay for them, and did not dispute their liability to pay on that account. In these circumstances, the War Office applied to the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day to know whether they might sanction an advance from military funds for these purposes, and the Treasury gave their approval. This sum was provided for in the Exchequer issues of 1901–2 and 1902–3. Thus, on the 31st of March, certain liabilities remained outstanding, being represented by the outstanding imprests for which accounts were not rendered. His hon. friend had asked whether this continued for an unlimited time without coming to the knowledge of the Department, and whether this sum was included in the Exchequer issues. This sum was provided out of the Exchequer issues. The House of Commons voted a certain sum of money and the Exchequer issues were within the limits of the sum voted by the House on the demand of the spending
    1092
    Department. As this expenditure took place all over the world, it was impossible to know what would be the actual claim on the 31st March, and it inevitably happened that some balances remained unexpended on the 31st of March. He would assume, for example, that the House granted £10,000 for a particular purpose. The spending Department would draw upon the Exchequer for £10,000, but when the accounts were closed and audited he would assume that they had not spent the £10,000 but £100 short of that amount. What then would be the procedure? That £100 which they had received and which was an Exchequer issue, but for which they could produce no voucher in that year, would be deducted from the grant which Parliament made to them in the subsequent year. They would be considered as having that amount in hand, and the Vote which Parliament made would be paid to them in an Exchequer issue less by the amount remaining unaccounted for at the close of the previous year. This money which had been referred to was included in the Exchequer issues of 1901–2 and 1902–3. His hon. friend had inquired how long this had gone on without coming to the knowledge of the Department. The accounts of any financial year, which ended on 31st March, were finally closed on 30th September. As soon as possible after that date the Comptroller and Auditor-General was furnished with a statement of the balance outstanding on these accounts. That statement appeared on the Appropriation Accounts rendered to Parliament, and the Committee would find the whole of the sum included in the Appropriation Accounts, which would be in the hands of Members in a very few days, together with the remarks of the Comptroller and Auditor-General upon them.
    MR. BUCHANANasked if the right hon. Gentleman meant that this sum was included in the Appropriation Accounts of 1901–2 or 1902–3.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid it was alluded to in the Auditor-General's Report for 1901–2, and the whole matter in its final and definite form would appear in the Comptroller and Auditor-General's Report on the Appropriation Accounts of 1902–3. A complaint had been made that the Auditor and Comptroller-General had not called attention to this matter, but he was aware of what was going on as would be seen from the correspondence which he carried on with the War Office and the Treasury at that time. The hon. Member himself was a member of the Public Accounts Committee for many years, and he knew that the Comptroller and Auditor-General was the officer of this House and not of the Treasury or of any Department of the Government; in fact he was independent of them, and it was not for them to suggest what action he should take. He was not quite sure whether he had made this matter clear to the House, but his hon. friend would understand that the money was included in the Exchequer issues; it appeared as an outstanding balance and could not run beyond the 30th.of September without being disclosed by the War Office, and reported to the House by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. He thought it would have been better if the Treasury had insisted that a Supplementary Estimate should have been taken for this sum at an earlier time. He was loth to criticise even in a friendly spirit anything that had been done by the Treasury when he was not responsible, but as a guide for the future he thought the
    1094
    Treasury ought to take the earliest opportunity of placing sums of this kind before the House in the form of Estimates, reserving to themselves the full right of claiming repayment from those from whom repayment was due. The voting of this money would close the War Office account, but it would not give any relief to the person upon whom they had a claim; their claim remained in force, and they would do their best to secure its payment in due time. He had told the House the history of this very complicated matter, and he did not think the Treasury ought to allow a sum of this kind to be carried beyond the very first opportunity they had of bringing it to the notice of the House.
    SIR JOSEPH LEESEasked what tribunal was it proposed should decide as to the value of the claim and counterclaim.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid there was no tribunal required to settle a dispute between the colonial Government and the home Government.
    SIR JOSEPH LEESEasked who was to decide on the counter-claim.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid this was a matter of arrangement between the colonial authorities and the Government. He deprecated any suggestion that a question of account or claim and counter-claim between a colony and ourselves should be treated as a matter to be referred to some outside tribunal. He hoped that they might arrange these matters amicably by negotiations between the authorities at home

    1095
    and in the colony, without the necessity of introducing any third party.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid that, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer who was responsible for allowing this expenditure out of the Army Votes in 1901–2, he thought his right hon. friend had given a perfectly fair account of what happened at that time. There certainly was a clear understanding given to him by those who represented the War Office at the time, that this expenditure was absolutely necessary for the purposes of the war, and therefore he thought that it might be properly charged on the Exchequer issues for the war. The expenditure was for rolling stock and repairing the line, and therefore he further obtained a promise that on account of the improvement in the rolling stock and in the line, which, of course, would be due to that expenditure, the colonial Government, which after the war took over the railway, and would have the benefit of the railways in the future, would recoup the Imperial Exchequer for both those amounts. In those circumstances he sanctioned that expenditure. He ceased to be Chancellor of the Exchequer in August, 1902, and of course knew nothing of any subsequent proceedings; but he could quite understand that his successor did not like apparently to throw doubt upon the recovery of the money from the Transvaal by submitting an Estimate in the year 1902–03 for its repayment; and he hoped that nothing that had been said, or would be said, in that debate would throw any doubt upon that recovery. He did not think that any fairer charge could be imposed upon the Colonies than this. They would have the benefit of all the expenditure, and, as to the counter
    1096
    claim, personally he did not much believe in it.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he was sure no hon. Member would cast any doubt upon this counter-claim. As regarded the actual position of this particular fund he was left as much in the dark at the end of the right hon. Gentleman's speech as he was at the beginning. He thought the criticisms of his hon. friend had been more than justified and he agreed that this sum ought not to appear in this way, and it ought to have been liquidated before. Under these circumstances he did not think it was worth while to pursue the discussion of a very difficult question which he had great difficulty in following, and which had not been made much clearer by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. While he agreed that the small sums might very well be left in the suspense account it was not right that such a large sum as £900,000 should to be left over for two years in the suspense account which practically left it in the control of a particular Department. After the white sheet in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stood he did not desire to pursue the subject further.
    MR. WHITLEYpointed out that one question which had not been dealt with was that this £1,250,000 was a claim on the Transvaal Government at the time these railways were handed over. The Committee would recollect that some ten months ago the House decided to authorise the raising of £35,000,000 under the Imperial guarantee, and part of that money, amounting to about £12,000,000, was to go to pay the Dutch shareholders and others who were the previous owners

    1097
    of those railways. Surely the claim of the home Government upon the colonial Government was in the nature of a prior claim. When those railways were handed over to the colonial Government as a business concern they were informed that they would produce a profit of no less than £2,500,000 a year, and it was clear that if the Government had shown any business capacity they would have insisted that this claim, which they said was a perfectly sound and just one, should have been met whilst they were owners of the line and they should have made proper arrangement for the settlement of their claim. The sum of £12,000,000 had been paid to the Dutch shareholders and the claim of the British taxpayer had been allowed to go by the board. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had given them no satisfactory assurance as to what was the nature of the acknowledgment of this debt. He wished to know if the right hon. Gentleman would lay on the Table any correspondence from Lord Milner which would show that this question had been treated as a legal obligation which they might recover. J After Lord Milner's Government had stated that a profit of £2,500,000 a year was anticipated from these railways he thought the claim of the British taxpayers ought not to be deferred in this way, and it ought to be made a first charge upon the undertaking. He hoped they would be able to get more information upon this point.
    MR. O'MARAsaid he should like to know something more about the counterclaim which the Colonies had made. They had heard nothing yet as to how far this country had been committed with regard to the spending of this
    1098
    £900,000. In the year 1901–02 the Chancellor of the Exchequer authorised the expenditure of £900,000 for the purpose of improving railways in South Africa on the understanding from the War Office that this expenditure was necessary for the purpose of carrying on the war, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day received an assurance that this sum would be repaid at the end of the war. On those two assurances the Chancellor of the Exchequer of 1901–2 authorised the expenditure of this money. The House of Commons was not informed of this fact, and it had not come within the cognisance of the House until the present time. It was a very serious thing for any Chancellor of the Exchequer to authorise payments, simply on the assurance of a Civil Government, over which he exercised no control, without first obtaining the consent of the House of Commons to the expenditure of such money. He considered that this was a breach of the traditional policy which governed the finances of this House. Any Chancellor of the Exchequer who did this kind of thing laid himself open to a charge of a gross breach of confidence in this House. How could they feel sure, under these circumstances, that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was not receiving similar assurances, and that public money was not now being spent in millions without the House knowing anything about it. Here was a sum of £900,000 which had been spent and the House was not informed of it until two years afterwards. He thought the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol had taken upon himself a responsibility which he ought not to have done. [Cries of "Divide, divide."] He could quite understand

    1099
    that hon. Members opposite did not care much about £900,000——
    Mr. Secretary AKERS-DOUGLASrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 170; Noes, 113. (Division List No. 27)

    AYES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

    Grenfell, William Henry

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Groves, James Grimble

    Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

    Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Pemberton, John S. G.

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Hamilton, Marq. of (L'donderry)

    Percy, Earl

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Pilkington, Colonel Richard

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

    Plummer, Walter R.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich)

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

    Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.)

    Haslett, Sir James Horner-

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Pym, C. Guy

    Bartley, Sir George C. T.

    Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley)

    Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

    Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

    Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.)

    Ratcliff, R. F.

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Hormon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Bignold, Arthur

    Hickman, Sir Alfred

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Bigwood, James

    Hoare, Sir Samuel

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Hogg, Lindsay

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Bond, Edward

    Hoult, Joseph

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    Bowles, Lt.-Col. H.F. (Middlesex

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm)

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

    Butcher, John George

    Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Hunt, Rowland

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire)

    Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

    Smith, H. C. (North'mb. Tyneside)

    Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J.A.(Worc.

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Spear, John Ward

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Cochrane, Hon. Thos, H. A. E.

    Kerr, John

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Stock, James Henry

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th)

    Stroyan, John

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. N.R)

    Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G. (Oxfd Univ.)

    Cust, Henry John C.

    Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham)

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Tollemache, Henry James

    Davenport, W. Bromley-

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Dickinson, Robert Edmond

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

    Tuff, Charles

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Doxford, Sir William Theodore

    Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

    Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir William H.

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

    Macdona, John dimming

    Welby, Lt.-Col. A.C.E. (Taunton)

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Welby, Sir Charles G.E. (Notts.)

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

    Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne)

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Manners, Lord Cecil

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Maxwell, W.J. H. (Dumfriesshire)

    Willox, Sir John Archibald

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

    Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

    Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Milvain, Thomas

    Wilson-Todd, Sir W.H.(Yorks.)

    Forster, Henry William

    Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

    Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R.(Bath)

    Fyler, John Arthur

    Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow)

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

    Calloway, William Johnson

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Wylie, Alexander

    Gardner, Ernest

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

    Morton, Arthur H. Ayliner

    Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

    Gordon, Maj Evans (T'rH'mlets)

    Mount, William Arthur

    Gore, Hn. G.R.C. Ormsby-(Salop)

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

    Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

    Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute)

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Boland, John

    Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Brigg, John

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Blake, Edward

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Kilbride, Denis

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Caldwell, James

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Roberts John Bryn (Eifion)

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

    Roche, John

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Leighy Sir Joseph

    Rose, Charles Day

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Leng, Sir John

    Runciman, Walter

    Crean, Eugene

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Lundon, W.

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Delany, William

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Sheehy, David

    Devlin, Charles Ramsay(Galway

    M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

    M'Hugh, Patrick A.

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Doogan, P. C.

    M'Kean, John

    Slack, John Bamford

    Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Duncan, J. Hastings

    Mansfield, Horace Rendall

    Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R. (Northants

    Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

    Mooney, John J.

    Sullivan, Donal

    Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert

    Murphy, John

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Fenwick, Charles

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Tomkinson, James

    Flynn, James Christopher

    O' Brien, P. J. (Tipperary N.)

    Toulmin, George

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    O' Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Fuller, J. M. F.

    O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

    Gilhooly, James

    O'Dowel, John

    White, George (Norfolk)

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    O'Malley, William

    Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    O'Mara, James

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Harmsworth, R. Leicester

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Partington, Oswald

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Woodhouse, Sir J.T. (Hudd'rsfld)

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

    Priestley, Arthur

    Young, Samuel

    Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)

    Rea, Russell

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Reckitt, Harold James

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Redely, M.

    Joyce, Michael

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Question put accordingly.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 113 Noes, 171. (Division List No. 28).

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

    Freeman- Thomas, Captain F.

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Fuller, J. M. F.

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Gilhooly, James

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

    O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

    Blake, Edward

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

    Boland, John

    Griffith, Ellis, J.

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Brigg, John

    Harmsworth, R. Leicester

    O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Hay den, John Patrick

    O' Dowd, John

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

    O 'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

    O'Malley, William

    Caldwell, James

    Hobhouse, C. E. H.(Bristol, E.)

    O'Mara, James

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Partington, Oswald

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Joyce, Michael

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Crean, Eugene

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Priestley, Arthur

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Kilbride, Denis

    Rea, Russell

    Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Reckitt, Harold James

    Delany, William

    Leigh, Sir Joseph

    Reddy, M.

    Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galway)

    Leng, Sir John

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Lundon, W.

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Doogan, P. C.

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Roche, John

    Duncan, J. Hastings

    M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Rose, Charles Day

    Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

    M'Hugh, Patrick A.

    Runciman, Walter

    Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

    M'Kean, John

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Fenwick, Charles

    Mansfield, Horace Rendall

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Mooney, John J.

    Sheehy, David

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    Murphy, John

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Slack, John Bamford

    Toulmin George

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Soares, Errest J.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips.

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R. (Northants)

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hudd'rsfld)

    Sullivan, Donal

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

    Young, Samuel

    Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

    White, George (Norfolk)

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

    Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

    Mr. Buchanan and Sir Joseph Leese.

    Tomkinson, James

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

    Grenfell, William Henry

    Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Groves, James Grimble

    Pemberton, John S. G.

    Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Percy, Earl

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Hamilton, Marq. of (L'donderry)

    Pilkington, Colonel Richard

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Plummer, Walter R.

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Balcarres, Lord

    Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds)

    Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

    Pryce Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.)

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Pym, C. Guy

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Rasch, Sir Frederic Came

    Bartley, Sir George C. T.

    Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley)

    Ratcliff, R. F.

    Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

    Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.)

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Bignold, Arthur

    Hickman, Sir Alfred

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Bigwood, James

    Hoare, Sir Samuel

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Hogg, Lindsay

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    Bond, Edward

    Hoult, Joseph

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F. (Middlesex)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Howard, John(Kent, Faversh'm)

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Butcher, John George

    Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Hunt, Rowland

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire)

    Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

    Smith, H. C (North'mb, Tyneside)

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

    Spear, John Ward

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc.)

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Stanley, Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk)

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Kenyon Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.)

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

    Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

    Kerr, John

    Stock, James Henry

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Stroyan, John

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th)

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'dUniv.)

    Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

    Lawson, John Grant(Yorks, N. R.)

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Cust, Henry John C.

    Lee, Arthur H.(Hants., Fareham

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

    Tollemache, Henry James

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Davenport, W. Bromley

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

    Tuff, Chares

    Dickinson, Robert Edmond

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.)

    Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

    Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

    Doxford, Sir William Theodore

    Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Welby, Lt.-Col. A.C.E.(Taunton

    Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

    Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Whiteley, H.(Ashton-und-Lyne

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Manners, Lord Cecil

    Willox, Sir John Archibald

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriesshire

    Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

    Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks.)

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

    Milvain, Thomas

    Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R. (Bath)

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

    Forster, Henry William

    Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

    Wylie, Alexander

    Fyler, John Arthur

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Wyndham-Quin, Major H. W.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

    Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

    Mount, William Arthur

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

    Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

    Gore, Hon. S.F. Ormsby-(Linc)

    Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham(Bute)

    Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Mr. Secretary AKERS-DOUGLASclaimed, "That the Original Question be now put."
    Original Question put accordingly, "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 on the 31st day of March, 1904, for Additional Expenditure, in respect of the following Army Services, viz:—

    £

    Vote 1. Pay, etc, of the Army

    2,000,000

    Vote 6. Transport and Remounts

    2,100,000

    Vote 7. Provisions, Forage, and other Supplies

    2,030,000

    Total

    £6,130,000

    Excess Appropriations-in-Aid (Votes 1, 6, 7, 9, and 10)

    3,430,000

    £2,700,000

    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 169; Noes, 109. (Division List No. 29.)

    AYES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Gardner, Ernest

    Maxwell, W.J.H (Dumfriesshire)

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

    Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Goldon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets)

    Milvain, Thomas

    Arnold-Forster. Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

    Gore, Hon. S.F. Ormsby (Linc.)

    Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

    Morgan, David. J (Walthamstow)

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Worrell, George Herbert

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Balcarres, Lord

    Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

    Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

    Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds)

    Grenfell, William Henry

    Mount, William Arthur

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.)

    Groves, James Grimble

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Murray, Rt. Hn. A Graham (Bute)

    Bartley, Sir George C. T.

    Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry)

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Bignold, Arthur

    Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

    Bigwood, James

    Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

    Peel. Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Pemberton, John S. G.

    Bond, Edward

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Percy, Earl

    Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F (Middlesex)

    Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

    Pilkington, Colonel Richard

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.)

    Plummer, Walter R.

    Butcher, John George

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Hickman, Sir Alfred

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

    Hoare, Sir Samuel

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Hogg, Lindsay

    Pym, C. Guy

    Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J.A.(Worc.

    Hoult, Joseph

    Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Ratcliff, R. F.

    Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

    Howard, John (Kent, Faversh' m)

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Hunt, Rowland

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

    Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    Cust, Henry John C.

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Kerr, John

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

    Davenport, William Bromley

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Sadler, Colonel Samuel A.

    Dickinson, Robert Edmond

    Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. N.R

    Smith, HC. (North'mb. Tyneside

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

    Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham

    Spear, John Ward

    Doxford Sir William Theodore

    Lees Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

    Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

    Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

    Stock, James Henry,

    Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

    Stroyan, John

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.)

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G. (Oxfd'Univ.)

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Macdona, John Gumming

    Tuff, Charles

    Forster, Henry William

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Fyler, John Arthur

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

    Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Manners, Lord Cecil

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

    Willox, Sir John Archibald

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.

    Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

    Welby, Lt.-Col. A.C.E. (Taunton)

    Wilson-Todd, Sir W.H.(Yorks.)

    Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.)

    Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R.(Bath)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn-Fellows.

    Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne)

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Wylie, Alexander

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

    Reckitt, Harold James

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)

    Reddy, M.

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Beaumont, Wentworth, C. B.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Blake, Edward

    Joyce, Michael

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Boland, John

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Brigg, John

    Kilbride, Denis

    Roche, John

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Rose, Charles Day

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Leigh, Sir Joseph

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Leng, Sir John

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Caldwell, James

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Sheehy, David

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    Lundon, W.

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Causton, Richard Knight

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Crean, Eugene

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Slack, John Bamford

    Dalziel, James Henry

    M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants)

    Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

    M'Hugh, Patrick A.

    Sullivan, Donal

    Delany, William

    M'Kean, John

    Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

    Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

    Mansfield, Horace Kendall

    Thomas, David Alfred (Morthyr)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Mooney, John J.

    Tomkinson, James

    Doogan, P. C.

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Toulmin, George

    Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

    Murphy, John

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    White, George (Norfolk)

    Fenwick, Charles

    O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

    Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

    Flynn, James Christopher

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

    O'Dowd, John

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Fuller, J. M. F.

    O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)

    Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd)

    Gilhooly, James

    O'Malley, William

    Young, Samuel

    Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

    O'Mara, James

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Partington, Oswald

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Goddard and Mr. Runciman.

    Harmsworth, R. Leicester

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Priestley, Arthur

    Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

    Rea, Russell

    And, it being after Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Resolution to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

NEW BILL.

  VAGRANT CHILDREN'S PROTECTION.
  Bill to provide for the further protection of the Children of Vagrants, ordered to be
  1108
  brought in by Mr. Claude Hay, Mr. Spear, Mr. Bond, Mr. Whitmore, Mr. Moon, Mr. Yerburgh, Mr. John Burns, Mr. Crooks, Mr. W. F. Lawrence, and Mr. Bousfield.

  VAGRANTS' BILL.
  "To provide for the protection of the Children of Vagrants," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 98.]
  Adjourned at twenty-eight Minutes before One o'clock.