§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £9,746,000, he granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Pay, Allowances, and other Charges of His Majesty's Army at Home and Abroad (exclusive of India) (General Staff, Regiments, Reserve, and Departments), which will come in course of 828 payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905."
§ *MR. NANNETTI,resuming his speech, said that several houses in Ireland were prepared to offer reasonable facilities for supplying the Army with military outfits. The effect of issuing the circular to which he had already referred was to immediately stop what had been up to that time the trade of military tailors in Ireland, and as a consequence many orders were countermanded. It might be said that this circular was only intended to be in the nature of a recommendation, but that was not the way in which 829 it was accepted by the various commanders throughout Ireland, and he would show to the Committee the effect it had upon these officers. The Commander of the Connaught Hangers had always taken a particular interest in the development of Irish industries and of the national language, and lie was not likely to take a step that would have destroyed one of the few trades left to Ireland. This circular was intended only to deal with cash prices. The Adjutant of the Connaught Rangers was immediately ordered to send out the following circular memorandum—
§ "The Commanding Officer has made the following decisions with regard to tailors and uniform. The following are to be dealt with for: Head-gear—Gates; overalls—Tantz of Oxford Street; other uniforms—Jones, Chalk, and Dawson, Sackville Street, London. Khaki will entirely be made by the sergeant master tailors, and a supply of cloth will be purchased, but every officer is to provide himself with one complete suit, which shall include knicker breeches and a pair of trousers. Messrs. Jones, Chalk, and Dawson, will be instructed as to the cut and pattern by the second in command immediately. The following points require the attention of officers; The mess jackets are to be made with shoulder straps of green cloth, and the roll collar of green poplin; no gold cording or buttons are to be attached to jacket. The jacket is to be made of serge and not of cloth. Boots for khaki dress are to be brown with plain toe-caps. For overalls ordinary Wellington greatcoat. Khaki is to be got by officers. Frock coat: officers must provide themselves with either the frock coat or the old serge jacket for courts-martial. Brown belts to be got at Jones, Chalk, and Dawson's. Servants' livery and blazer sashes and regimental ties are to be purchased from Flight, of Winchester. Linen collars for mess are to be of the kind that stand up all round, and when on to lap one end over the other.
§ By Order,
§ L. J. CONKY,
§ Adjutant 1st Connaught Rangers."
§ The circular of the Commander-in-Chief proved that it was not the intention of the Commander-in-Chief that such an order as that should have been given, but the effect of that memorandum had been to compel the officers of the various regiments to send their regimental orders to London. He could not understand why hon. Members should not assist him in putting a stop to this kind of thing, and he asked the Secretary of State for War to have that order withdrawn. He had reason for believing that the ex-Secretary for War and the present Financial Secretary to the War Office did 830 not agree with that order, which had created wide-spread discontent in Ireland.
§
The hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin had been interviewed by the master tailors upon this question, and the workmen had called attention to it as well as the Trades Congress. He had also brought it before the notice of the Secretary for War, and still this grievance had not been redressed. He should always feel it his duty to call attention to these matters, and to insist upon justice being done in a question of this kind. It was not only the cash system, but a cash and credit system, and at present there was no possibility of manufacturers in Ireland competing. He would not go so far as to say that these goods should, as a matter of right, be bought in Ireland, but surely the people of that country had a right to compete, and officers ought not to be tyrannised over by any adjutant saying that they should go to some particular firms in London and Winchester. He asked hon. Members to stand by him in this matter, because it was a question that affected the artisans of Ireland. He had received a very strong resolution from Belfast upon this matter, and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman who represented Belfast to do justice in this matter. He was not asking that an order should be placed with any tailor who was not prepared to give the official cut and what was required by the Army, but he asked that such a circular as that which had been sent out should receive the condemnation of the War Office and be immediately withdrawn. A young officer had sent to him a list of the cash and credit prices for a few of the articles required by officers, which clearly proved that the intention of the Commander-in-Chief had been abused, for it was never his intention that young officers should not be protected from extravagant prices. When the circular was sent out why were Irish firms not asked to compete? When he first brought this matter before the House, he was told that this had been done, but he had since consulted several master tailors and workmen's associations, and he could not find anything of the kind had been done. Surely they could afford to treat the trade of Ireland fairly in this matter without using the influence of the War Office to bring their trade over into this
831
country. To show the extent to which this scandal had gone on, he would read to the Committee a list of the various regiments which had been called upon to deal with certain English firms. They were as follows—
Connaught Rangers—Messis. Jones, Chalk, and Dawson, London; and Messrs. Cates, London. Royal Irish Fusiliers—Messrs. Hawkes, London; and Messrs. Gates, London. Innis-killing Fusiliers—Messrs. Flight, Winchester. Dublin Fusiliers—Messrs. Flight, Winchester. Minister Fusiliers—Messrs. Flight, Winchester. Royal Irish Regiment—Messrs. Hawkes, London. Leinster Regiment—Messrs. Hawkes, London. Army Medical—Messrs. Johnston, Dublin, or Messrs. Hawkes or Holt, London.
Even the Warwick's were recommended to deal with an English firm, and so were the Royal Engineers. When they considered the whole host of Irish regiments, was it not ridiculous that there was only one Dublin firm mentioned, and that firm only when sandwiched between two English firms? He thought it was a scandal, and he was surprised at the War Office not taking action after their attention had been drawn to the matter. He had sent letters to various representatives at the War Office and asked that this thing should be altered, in order that he should not take up the time of the House with the subject, but nothing had been done. They could get nothing for Ireland, although they had to pay a large sum towards the upkeep of the Army. Not one penny of the money voted in the Army Estimates would be left in Ireland if it could possibly be taken away.
§ In the case of one young officer in Ireland who joined the Army, the first thing he did was to go to his tailor in Dublin, where he gave an order for a military outfit. When the outfit was sent home to him he was told that it was not the official cut and that it had not been purchased from Hawkes, of London, and the result was that the uniform was not paid for, and the matter had to be brought into court. A suspicion had been aroused that somebody was getting a commission upon these orders sent to London, and he thought it was necessary to take steps that would put an end to suspicions of that character. From the inquiries he had made amongst master tailors he was satisfied that the work could not only be done as well, but it could be done cheaper in Ireland. What 832 he asked for was that officers in His Majesty's service should be at liberty to deal with any firm they liked. Formerly all this kind of work went to the merchant tailors of Dublin, Belfast, and Cork. What was the necessity for the change? Why should young officers be compelled to come to London tailors? There was too little work in Ireland, and they could not afford to allow a single thing to be taken away from them in the way he had described. He was sure that the representative of the War Office would not say that he was putting an unreasonable demand before the Committee. He represented a constituency of working men in Dublin, and when their interests were assailed in this way he would bring the case before Parliament. But he did not speak in the interest only of working men because they supported him. He spoke also on behalf of the merchant tailors in his constituency, and he was sure they would not give him a vote. He had a letter in his hand stating that the English firms who did this work did not pay the recognised rate of wages, and that a great deal of the work was done in sweating dens. Was that a condition of things the War Office would tolerate? When he brought this matter before the right hon. Gentleman the other day the answer given was, that this was a question of private money, and that the War Office had no right to interfere with it. It appeared to him that it was an infringement of the fair wages Resolution passed by the House, and in cases of this kind they were entitled to protest against the way the work was being done. He hoped he had stated a fair case, and all that he asked was that justice should be done. He moved a reduction of item A by £1,000.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A (Pay, etc. of General Staff) be reduced by £1,000."—(Mr. Nannetti.)
§ MR. WILLIAM MOORE (Antrim, N.)said his knowledge of the matter was gathered from what ho had read in the papers. He had no merchant tailors in his constituency, and, therefore, he was absolutely impartial on the question. He thought if hon. Members knew the actual position, they would not be prepared to ratify without consideration the 833 treatment which the War Office had extended to Irish merchant tailors. It seemed to him that this was really a hard case. Why should it be necessary that officers in the Connaught Rangers should get their uniforms in London? There ought to be some reason for it, but no reason had been given. From the correspondence it appeared that there was no Order on the subject, and that young officer's merely acted on the advice of the adjutant The weight which, advice carried with it depended very much on the quarter from which the advice came. In this connection when a young officer was told by the adjutant to get his uniform from an English firm the advice, he thought, almost amounted to a suggestion accompanied by sanction. It was not fair that men who joined His Majesty's service should not have the choosing of the tailor who was to supply their uniforms, and that he should be directed to a London firm to the exclusion of Irish firms. There was no reason why Irish merchant tailors should be excluded from competing.
§ THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORT,) Cheshire, Macclesfieldsaid he sympathised with the hon. Member who moved the reduction in the general views he had put forward. He felt most strongly that it was most desirable that the people of a district should feel that they were materially benefited by troops being quartered in their district. So far as contracts were concerned, he should prefer that they should be given locally. That was a matter of general principle, the only qualification being that there must be due regard for economic consideration in the interest of the whole body of the people. But this was not a question of contract at all. It had been felt that the Army was a profession too exclusively reserved for rich men. Many endeavours, therefore, had been made to meet the difficulties of young officers on joining these regiments, and particularly efforts had been made to ensure that they knew where they could obtain uniforms in the cheapest market. If Irish firms had not been invited to send in prices, it was a regrettable mistake, but one already corrected. They were now invited, and had availed themselves of the invitation. Commanding officers had been informed 834 that there was in the War Office a list of firms, with the prices at which they were willing to supply uniforms. There was no compulsion on the part of the War Office. He absolutely denied that the War Office had, in any way, interfered with the right of young officers to deal with any firms they pleased. He was not prepared to interfere with mere advice of commanding officers, but advice amounting to a direction or an order would be highly improper.
§ MR. NANNETTIsaid he was sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he wished to call his attention to the order issued by the adjutant of the Connaught Rangers directing officers to deal with particular firms.
§ MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid the hon. Member had called attention to that already. In answer to a Question on the subject the Secretary of State for War stated that in 1903 in a particular instance a commanding officer gave an order to a young officer to obtain his uniform from a particular firm, and that instructions had been sent forbidding any such action on the part of the commanding officer, and hon. Members were invited to draw the War Secretary's attention to any other cases which came to their knowledge. This attitude on the part of the War Office ought to be satisfactory to the hon. Member. He could not undertake to control the advice given by commanding officers, but when it came to be an order of the character indicated it would be dealt with by the Secretary of State in the same manner as in the case of the Connaught Rangers. He was sorry that the hon. Gentleman should have referred to an unnamed regiment and imputed most discreditable action to certain officers. He could not accept without any sub stantiation at all the very discreditable imputation that officers had received commission in respect of uniforms ordered. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press that matter further.
§ MR. NANNETTIsaid he distinctly stated that ho did not make the statement on his own authority. He quoted a report which appeared in the Press of the proceedings which took place before a judge in reference to the matter. He 835 had endeavoured not to make any imputation. Ho had no idea of making reflections on officers which he could not substantiate.
§ MR. BROMLEY-DAVENPORTsaid he was sorry he did not notice that the hon. Member was quoting a newspaper report.
§ MR. FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick)said the hon. Gentleman had stated it would be well that the supplies required for the troops in Ireland should be obtained in the various districts where they were stationed, due regard being paid to considerations of economy. Ho wished to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that Scotch porter was being consumed in canteens not many furlongs from Guinness's brewery. He could not understand why that porter should be imported. He complained that there was practically a boycott of Irish manufacturers and tradesmen by the War Office and other Departments, and asked why a depot for military stores was not established in Dublin.
§ MAJOR EVANS GORDON (Tower Hamlets, Stepney)said that the position seemed to be that a list of tailors who would supply uniforms at a cheap rate was submitted by the War Office to the commanding officers of regiments, and that the adjutant chose one of those tailors, and advised young officers to go to that particular establishment. A number of Irish regiments had been referred to in which young officers had been advised to get their uniforms from English firms, and in only one case had an Irish tailor been recommended. That course of proceeding had created the suspicion which had given rise to all the ill-feeling. He suggested that instead of sending the list of firms to the adjutants of regiments it should be handed to the young officers themselves, or their parents; that Irish tailors should be included in the list; and that the officers or their parents should be left with absolute freedom of choice.
§ MR. BROADHURST (Leicester)said he could assure the hon. Member for College Green Division that he had the hearty and undivided support of the British workmen in his desire that Irish 836 workmen should have a fair share of the work to be done for the public service of this country. He did not think that any man could charge his hon. friend in making that claim with having appealed to any Party prejudice. His hon. friend distinctly disclaimed making such an appeal, and had put his case with great moderation, lucidity, and marked success. The Financial Secretary to the War Office had not met the whole case put forward by his hon. friend. The hon. Gentleman, as ho understood him, said that the War Office was not immediately responsible for some of the circulars which had been issued, such as "Brown bolts to be got at Jones';" but officers in His Majesty's service did sign circulars advising young officers where to go to get their clothing.
§ MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTWhat regiment?
§ MR. BROADHURSTsaid that the circular from which he had quoted was signed "L. J. Conroy, Adjutant of 1st Connaught Rangers," and it was distinctly marked with official authority. What his hon. friend wanted was that means should be adopted to prevent what appeared to sensible and ordinary people to be touting in favour of certain firms outside Ireland; and lie thought it was a disgrace if the action of any officer in His Majesty's Service could be reasonably open to the charge of touting for London tailors. The inevitable construction of that was that such officers would' not do it unless they themselves received some benefit from it. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] He did not himeslf believe that; but he maintained that it was naturally open to that construction by suspicious people; and the War Office should take steps to make any such misconception in the minds of any people impossible. He submitted that the case applied not only to uniforms but to every article of clothing; and that the young officer should get his golfing and shooting suits from the firms suggested by the commanding officer. He was not unmindful of the grace added to the figure of young officers by their tailor, and he had often admired them when they were artistically attired, but the choice of tailor should be left to the private decision of each officer, and 837 no one should be subjected to any influence to go to a particular firm. Military success did not depend on the fit of a uniform to satisfy the taste of an officer in command of a regiment. The possibilities were that the great majority of the best paid cutters in London were Irishmen, and he was perfectly satisfied that as good work could be obtained in turning out uniforms from the tailors of Dublin, Belfast, and Cork as in London. He had a letter from the Secretary of the Amalgamated Society of Tailors of Great Britain, in which he believed Ireland was included, which stated that some orders from Ireland had been placed with a particular firm in London which was paying under the standard rate of wages fixed by the London Society. That was a state of things that should not be tolerated, and it was only reasonable that public work should be placed with firms which recognised the usual wages paid in the trade, and other conditions pertaining thereto. He thought his hon. friend had made out a perfectly good case, which had not been met by the Financial Secretary to the War Office.
§ *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that there had been a misconception in this case. It was not a question of public contract at all, hut of individual purchases by individual officers out of their own money for their own use. It was the duty of the War Office to see that the regulations as to uniforms were observed, and that important duty was deputed to the commanders of regiments; but it was not within the province of the War Office to dictate to officers how they should spend their money, or where they should buy their clothes. The hon. Member wanted to go a step further, and say that senior officers ought not to give any advice to their juniors. Such an undertaking on his part would be absolutely futile; but he would undertake that no pressure of the kind alluded to should be allowed again. The War Office had endeavoured to make the list as open as they reasonably could.
§ MR. NANNETTIsaid that after the sympathetic answer he had received from the right hon. Gentleman he would accept 838 is assurance, and asked leave to withdraw is Motion.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.)said that on Tuesday last he had brought before the notice of the Secretary for War the grave anomaly of the position of the Judge-Advocate General, and no notice had been taken of his statement.
§ *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid ho would be perfectly prepared to discuss this question on a more appropriate occasion.
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid he accepted the right hon. Gentleman's assurance.
§ MR. FIELDsaid that the Financial Secretary to the War Office had not taken notice of his request for the establishment of a depot for military stores in Dublin.
§ MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid that there were considerations opposed to the establishment of such a depot, which would far outweigh its advantages, apart altogether from the question of cost of the staff.
§ MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTwas understood to assent.
§ MR. TOMKINSON (Cheshire, Crewe)said that they were at a little disadvantage from the fact that the last Report on Military Prisons was two years old. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War would be able to assure the Committee that the degrading and brutalising punishment of flogging was entirely obsolete in military prisons.
§ *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he could assure the hon. Gentleman that he was entirely sympathetic with him in this matter, and that he would take every step to prevent soldier prisoners from being punished in that manner. He appealed to the Committee that as there had been now four days' discussion on the general question, he hoped that the Committee would allow the Vote to be taken now.
MR. SECRETARY ARNOLD-FORSTERrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that question.
§ MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid that he had had no answer to his question as to the number of generals on the establishment. There was an enormous expenditure on the pay of those generals, and some effect should be given to economy in that direction. He moved the reduction of the Vote by £5,000.
§ *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid, in answer to the hon. Member for Lichfield, that the matter was under consideration.
MR. SECRETARY ARNOLD-FOESTERrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ MR. COURTENAY WARNER,seated, and with his hat on, said—On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I moved a reduction.
§ MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid that, as the Secretary for War made a short speech before moving the Closure, there had been time for his reduction to be put.
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes,128; Noes. 87. (Division List No. 50.)
841| AYES. | ||
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham) |
| Allhusen, Augustus HenryEden | Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage |
| Anson, Sir Wlliam Reynell | Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart | Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine |
| Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. HughO | Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst | Long, Et. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.) |
| Arrol, Sir William | Finch, Et. Hon. George H. | Lonsdale, John Brownlee |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) |
| Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H. | Fisher, William Hayes | Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Flannery, Sir Fortescue | Macdona, John Gumming |
| Balcarres, Lord | Forster, Henry William | M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire |
| Balfour Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) | Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.) | Manners, Lord Cecil |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds | Gore, Hn. G. R. C.Ormsby-(Salop | Martin, Richard Biddulph |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc) | Meysey-Thomson, Sir H. M. |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin | Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G. |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry C. | Grenfell, William Henry | Moore, William |
| Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. | Gretton, John | Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow) |
| Bignold, Arthur | Groves, James Grimble | Morrell, George Herbert |
| Bigwood, James | Hamilton, Marq of (Lnd'nderry | Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Hare, Thomas Leigh | Mount, William Arthur |
| Bond, Edward | Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th) | Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Murray, Et. Hon. A. G. (Bute) |
| Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire | Heath, A. Howard (Harder) | Nicholson, William Graham |
| Chapman, Edward | Heath, James (Staffords., N.W. | O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens |
| Churchill, Winston Spencer | Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside | Peel, Hn.Wm. Robert Wellesley |
| Clive, Captain Percy A. | Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil | Percy, Earl |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Hunt, Rowland | Pilkington, Colonel Richard |
| Collings, Et. Hon. Jesse | Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse | Plummer, Walter R. |
| Colomb, Sir Jn. Charles Ready | Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Compton, Lord Alwyne | Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward |
| Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile | Kerr, John | Purvis, Robert |
| Davenport, William Bromley | Keswick, William | Randles, John S. |
| Dickson, Charles Scott | Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) | Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne |
| Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph | Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) | Reid, James (Greenock) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers | Lawson, Jn. G. (Yorks., N. E.) | Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) |
| Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert | Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.) | Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.) |
| Rutherford, John (Lancashire) | Stock, James Henry | Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne |
| Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) | Stroyan, John | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) |
| Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford | Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley | Willox, Sir John Archibald |
| Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander | Talbot, Lo-d E. (Chichester) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart |
| Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles | Thornton, Percy M. | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert | Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M. | |
| Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) | Tritton, Charles Ernest | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir |
| Sharpe, William Edward T. | Valentia, Viscount | Alexander Acland-Hood and |
| Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) | Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H. | Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes. |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) | Hayden, John Patrick | Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Helme, Norval Watson | Reddy, M. |
| Allen, Charles P. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Horniman, Frederick John | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) |
| Black, Alexander William | Joicey, Sir James | Roche, John |
| Brigg, John | Joyce, Michael | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson | Kilbride, Denis | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) |
| Burke, E. Haviland | Lambert, George | Shackleton, David James |
| Caldwell, James | Layland-Barratt, Francis | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Lundon, W. | Shochan, Daniel Daniel |
| Channing, Francis Allston | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Sheehy, David |
| Clancy, John Joseph | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | M'Crae, George | Slack, John Bamford |
| Cremer, William Randal | M'Hugh, Patrick A. | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Cullinan, J. | M'Kean, John | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Dalziel, James Henry | M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Delany, William | Markham, Arthur Basil | Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr) |
| Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galway | Murphy, John | Tomkinson, James |
| Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.) | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Toulmin, George |
| Dobbie Joseph | Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) | Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Donelan, Captain A. | O'Brien Kendal (TipperaryMid | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Doogan, P. O. | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Edwards, Frank | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Farrell, James Patrick | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Ffrench, Peter | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Field William | O'Dowd, John | |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon,N. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Warner and Mr. Charles Hobhouse |
| Flynn, James Christopher | O'Malley, William | |
| Fuller, J. M. F. | O'Mara, James | |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | |
| Hammond, John | Partington, Oswald |
§ Question put accordingly "That a sum, not exceeding £9,746,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge for the Pay, Allowances, and other Charges of His Majesty's Army at Home and Abroad (exclusive of India) (General Staff, Regiments, Reserve, and Depart-
842§ ments), which will come in course payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1905."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 134, Noes 75. (Division List No. 51.)
843| AYES. | ||
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin | Churchill, Winston Spencer |
| Allhusen, Angustus Henry Eden | Bentinck, Lord Henry C. | Clive, Captain Percy A. |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. | Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Bignold, Arthur | Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse |
| Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. HughO. | Bigwood, James | Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready |
| Arrol, Sir William | Blundell, Colonel Henry | Compton, Lord Alwyne |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Bond, Edward | Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile |
| Aubrey-Fletcher, R t. Hon. Sir H. | Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Davenport, William Bromley |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ. | Dickson, Charles Scott |
| Balcarres, Lord | Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph |
| Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) | Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds | Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A (Worc. | Doxford, Sir William Theodore |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Chapman, Edward | Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin |
| Dyke,Rt.Hon.Sir William Hart | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Reid, James (Greenock) |
| Edwards, Frank | Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S. | Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) |
| Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine | Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert |
| Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst | Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.) | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) |
| Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Rutherford, W. W (Liverpool |
| Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford |
| Fisher, William Hayes | Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth | Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander |
| Flannery, Sir Fortescue | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles |
| Forster, Henry William | Macdona, John Gumming | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert |
| Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.) | M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Gore, Hn G.R.C.Ormsby-(Salop) | Manners, Lord Cecil | Sharpe, William Edward T. |
| Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc) | Markham, Arthur Basil | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | Martin, Richard Biddulph | Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs. |
| Grenfell, William Henry | Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. | Stock, James Henry |
| Gretton, John | Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Groves, James Grimble | Moore, William | Stroyan, John |
| Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry | Morgan, D. J. (Waltamstow) | Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley |
| Hare, Thomas Leigh | Morrell, George Herbert | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th) | Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Hay, Hon. Claude George | Mount, William Arthur | Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. |
| Heath, A. Howard (Hanley) | Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. | Tritton, Charles Ernest |
| Heath, James (Staffords., N.W. | Murray, Rt Hn A.Graham (Bute | Valentia, Viscount |
| Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside | Nicholson, William Graham | Walrond, Rt. Hn.Sir William H |
| Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil | O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens | Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.) |
| Hunt, Rowland | Peel, Hn.Wm. Robert Wellesley | Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne |
| Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse | Percy, Earl | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) |
| Jessel, Captain Herbert Morton | Pilkington, Colonel Richard | Willox, Sir John Archibald |
| Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. | Plummer, Walter R. | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart |
| Kerr, John | Pretyman, Ernest George | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Keswick, William | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward | |
| Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) | Purvis, Robert | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir |
| Lawson, Jn. G. (Yorks., N. R.) | Randles, John S. | Alexander Acland-Hood |
| Lee, A H. (Hants., Fareham) | Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne | and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes. |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork. N. E.) | Helme, Norval Watson | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Horniman, Frederick John | Partington, Oswald |
| Allen, Charles P. | Joicey, Sir James | Reddy, M. |
| Black, Alexander William | Joyce, Michael | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Brigg, John | Kilbride, Denis | Roche, John |
| Burke, E. Haviland | Lambert, George | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Caldwell, James | Layland-Barratt, Francis | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Lundon, W. | Shackleton, David James |
| Clancy, John Joseph | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B. |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel |
| Cremer, William Randal | M'Crae, George | Sheehy, David |
| Cullinan, J. | M'Hugh, Patrick A. | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Dalziel, James Henry. | M'Kean, John | Slack, John Bamford |
| Delany, William | M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galway | Murphy, John | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.) | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr). |
| Dobbie, Joseph | Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) | Tomkinson, James |
| Donelan, Captain A. | O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMid | Toulmin, George |
| Doogan, P. C. | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Farrell, James Patrick | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Ffrench, Peter | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Field, William | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | O'Dowd, John | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Flynn, James Christopher | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N. | |
| Hammond, John | O'Malley, William | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whitley and Mr. Henderson. |
| Hayden, John Patrick | O'Mara, James |
§ And, it being after Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
§ Resolution to be reported upon 844 Monday next: Committee to sit again upon Monday next.
§ Adjourned at twenty-two minutes after Twelve o'clock.