HC Deb 15 March 1904 vol 131 cc1184-204

"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

Resolution read a second time.

*MR. McCRAE (Edinburgh, E.)

said that various explanations had been given regarding the sum of £900,000 included in this Resolution in respect of the Imperial military railways in South Africa, but each explanation had made the matter more involved, and he hoped the Secretary of State for War would take advantage of the present, opportunity to give a final and logical explanation on the subject. The Financial Secretary to the War Office had fold them that "this item of £900,000 was only a matter of book-keeping. Then he said it was part of the price of the railways amounting to £1,250,000. They now found it was neither of these, and that this £900,000 had been spent on the maintenance of the railways while in military occupation, and that the balance of £350,000 was made up of stores taken out of stock. He understood that that £350,000 had been repaid; if that was the case he hoped the Secretary of State would say where the money had gone. According to the South African Loan and War Contribution Act, it was to go to the redemption of debt. If it had been so applied, the right hon. Gentleman would surely require, on the same footing as the £900,000, a Supplementary Estimate for the £350,000. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that the £900,000 had not been repudiated by the colonies, but it was said they had a counterclaim against the War Office. In that case he failed to see why the War Office Estimates should be charged with the sum at all. In any case the expenditure was part of the war expenditure; it was made out of the Army Votes, and so charged. What the House wanted to know was when the money was expended, and whether it was paid out of loans or out of revenue. He understood, however, from an answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on another matter, that the £900,000 was the balance of the £4,000,000 payable by the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies to this country. It ought to be dealt with in a different way altogether. He commended the Secretary of State for his reforming zeal, and he felt sure it was with the greatest possible pleasure that the House heard him say that it was desirable that the finances of the War Office should be put upon a basis beyond criticism. The year before last he complained that £10.000,000 sterling had been spent for a certain purpose without the authority of Parliament. That was not the way in which the finances of this great country should be carried on. That was only an instance of how they got into a habit of extravagance without realising where they were going. The time had come for this House to realise the necessity for economy, and he hoped the Secretary of State for War would give such an explanation as would satisfy the House upon this particular point. After reading over the proceedings when this matter was discussed in Committee, he must say that the position was a very involved one, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would he able to throw some light upon the question. He begged to move a reduction of the Vote by £900,000.

Amendment proposed— To leave out £2,700,000' and insert '£1,800,000.'—(Mr. McCrae.)

Question proposed "That '£2,700,000' stand part of the said Resolution."

THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORT,) Cheshire, Macclesfield

said that perhaps a good deal of misunderstanding had been caused by a mistake made on his own part. He wished to remind the House that an explanation had been given on this point. A sum of £1,250,000 had been expended by the Government in the repair and maintenance of the line. The item of £900,000 was expended in cash, and had not been charged against the Estimates; £350,000, on the other hand, had been charged against the Estimates in the past, out of stores.

*MR. McCRAE

said that surely the £900,000 was in the same position.

MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT

said that was not so, for the £900,000 had not been charged against the Estimates at all. He assumed that the money was going to be repaid because it had been expended upon a certain service, namely, the reconstruction and improvement of the railway.

*MR. McCRAE

asked if the £350,000 had been repaid.

MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT

No. Inasmuch as there was some doubt as to whether the money was to be repaid he was sorry that he had spoken of the matter as one of book-keeping; but it, as he hoped, it would be repaid that description would be a perfectly correct one.

MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL (Oldham)

asked whether the British Government was held, responsible for all the damage done to the railway while it was in the possession of the military authorities.

MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT

said the Government had repaired the damage, and they considered that they had placed the line in a better condition then it was in when they found it. Therefore they contended that the colonies should repay the amount. If the money were repaid it would not go to the Army Votes, but, under the Act, to the relief of the National Debt.

MR. WHITLEY (Halifax)

said the hon. Member had made the point as to how and when the money was spent quite clear, but he had not told them what steps were being taken to obtain the repayment of this money which was clearly due from the colonies. The railways ought not to have been handed over until it was perfectly clear that this money would he repaid. The Transvaal Government had now got possession of this asset, and by a counterclaim they were attempting to cancel their liability. When our troops took possession of the country the railway was in our possession, and they were in a position to say to the Civil Government upon what terms they could acquire the railways. The actual money which had been put into the railways in the way of new and improved bridges, rolling stock, and stores were obviously matters for purchase on the part of the Civil Government when the railways were handed over. Twelve months ago the Colonial Secretary informed them what a splendid property these railways were, and he based his estimate for raising £65,000,000 of debt on the profit-making value of these particular railways. He actually declared that Lord Milner estimated a profit of £2,500,000 on the working of these railways. Surely a business in a position to make a profit of that kind ought not to object to paving a sum like that which was contained in this Estimate. If they were making this profit it was rather too much of a good thing that the very first thing repaid should not be the money due to the taxpayers, and in default of that we ought to have possession of these railways. He wished to press his request, to which no answer had been made, that the correspondence between the Government and Lord Milner as to the nature of the counterclaim, and the excuses by which the payment of this money had been either challenged or postponed, should be laid on the Table. It was on that point that the Committee was not satisfied when this Vote was closured, and they ought to be satisfied before they allowed the money to be charged to the British taxpayer. This was much too shadowy a basis upon which to put off a claim of £900,000 due to the British taxpayer. Surely the hon. Member opposite would not contest this fact, for he understood him to assent to the statement that a large amount of profit was being made on the railways, and surely any concern making a large profit ought to pay its just debts. They had handed over the railways, which he understood were valued at between £11,000,000 and £13,000,000, and yet the colonies hesitated to repay this small sum of £1,500,000. He did not think the Government were taking a strong attitude, and unless they stiffened their backs and stood up to Lord Milner they would not get this money repaid. There were three items in this Vote which, in his opinion, ought to have been placed on the taxpayers of the colony, and not on the British Exchequer, and they amounted to £1,500,000. The House would remember that twelve months ago, when £3,000,000 was voted, they were distinctly promised that that would be absolutely the final sum and they were told the same thing with regard to the South African Constabulary. It appeared now that after having made that bargain the Transvaal Government was to be allowed to run off without paying its share. He thought the House ought to strongly protest against this sort of thing.

MR. COURTENAY WARNER (Staffordshire, Lichfield)

said he should like to ask what was being done towards establishing our claim to this money. He was entirely in favour of railways being owned by the Government of the country where that was possible. That was a good principle, provided the Transvaal Government could pay for the railways. The result in this case was that we had already spent £350,000 on the railways, a sum which, for the present, was practically lost. They were told that there was some possibility of getting it, but the Government was entirely to blame for handing over the railways in the way they had done. There was no doubt as to the railways being a paying concern. Apparently the Transvaal Government was an insolvent purchaser, If this transaction had not been carried out in this way there would have been about £1,000,000 less capital to be raised by the Government. The harm that was being done to the country by this careless financial system was incalculable. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to give the House an assurance that negotiations were in progress, and something was being done towards getting a pledge out of the Colonial Government that we were to get our money back again in cash, and to get it back quickly. It was quite true that the colony was in a very bad way, but if the colony was too poor to pay, the railway ought to have been sold to some one who could afford to pay for it.

MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL

said he understood that the position was this. We took over the railways during the war, and, having got them into our hands, we repaired them and handed them over to the Transvaal and the Orange River Colonies, and that now a claim was made by us for £1,200,000. The Transvaal Government and the Orange River Colony Government said,—"It is quite true that you have spent money on the railways, but in the meantime you have injured the rolling stock and you have damaged the railways." It seemed to him that we had a very real claim. He asked the Committee to remember that the great bulk of the damage done to the railways was done before we got them. The Boers tore up everything they could tear up. He could understand that we were responsible for making good the damage to the railways after they came into our hands, but the responsibility for making good the damage which was done before then was quite another question. The damage done to the railways while in our hands could not be anything like so great as the damage which was done before that time. The condition in which the railways left our hands was at least £900,000 better thin when they came into our hands. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury had pointed out that we had in some cases put in bridges which would accommodate a double line of rails. These bridges were superior to the old bridges. He should like to know what were the items of the counterclaim, for £900.000 seemed a large amount for any tear and wear there could have been. The House should be put in possession of some of the correspondence dealing with this subject. He thought we should not count on getting this £900,000. His own opinion was that we would not get it. But we should not abandon our claim, so that in the future it could be regarded as a gift to the colonies which could definitely take its place in the profit and loss account between them and ourselves.

MR. BUCHANAN (Perthshire, E.)

said there was a saying in Scotland, "ye canna tak' the breeks aff a Hielan'man," and that might be said in regard to the recovery of this money from the Transvaal. He thought the House ought to know a little more in regard to this absurd counterclaim put forward by the Transvaal. The Secretary of State for War had said that the counterclaim was for deterioration of the line and rolling stock while the railways were in military use. They were now discussing the fact that £1,250,000 had been spent on improving the line and the rolling stock. Considering all the circumstances of the case the counterclaim was absurd. All this money was spent before 31st March, 1902. The Financial Secretary told them that £350,000 had been voted by the House in previous years, but he had not told them the year's Estimates in which it was contained. He himself had looked through the Estimates of 1901–2 and 1902–3 and he had failed to find any item which in any specific degree referred co this charge. The statements of previous Chancellors of the Exchequer came to this, that there was necessity for the expending of about £1.000,000 on new sidings and bridges, and otherwise improving the lines for military purposes, and that the Treasury agreed that advances should be made out of Exchequer balances. A Suspense Account for that amount was opened. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer told them that when it came to his notice he was of opinion that a Suspense Account of such magnitude ought to be closed as speedily as possible. The substance of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol was that, if he had imagined that the Suspense Account was to continue so long as it had done, he never would have allowed it. This was a very serious flaw in the control the House of Commons possessed over the expenditure of public money. The same thing was going on, although on a smaller scale, in respect of China. On the same page of the Appropriation Account there was a sum of £90,000 for railways in Northern China, with an explanatory foot-note, from which it appeared that this money was from a suspense account during the Chinese war. It had been kept in the suspense account in the hope that it would be recovered from the Chinese Indemnity. He thought they had a right to obtain a still further explanation of the way in which this large sum of money was originally issued, and how it was allowed to remain in the suspense account for a considerable period, without being brought to the consideration of Parliament. He should like also the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make some statement in regard to procedure in the future.

*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,) Belfast, W.

said that he had already given an explanation in regard to this matter, but he would now endeavour to repeat it. He agreed with his hon. friend that it was most desirable to place this charge on record as being one which the Government believed they could equitably make against the Transvaal Government; that they considered it to be a debt due from the Transvaal; and that they entertained a hope at the same time that it might be repaid. His hon. friend did not appear sanguine on that point, and that expression of opinion would not help in the payment of the money. The hon. Member for East Perth had spoken of the long continuance of suspense accounts as very unusual and very undesirable. He himself did not think that the practice was open to ail the blame which was alleged against it. It seemed to be looked upon as normal by so high an authority as the Comptroller and Auditor-General, who made no comment at all on the irregularity which was said to attach to the system. But, from a strictly financial point of view, he personally saw great inconvenience in allowing these amounts to be carried on, whether in suspense accounts or otherwise, for such long periods. He supposed that the only justification for it was that cited by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as being the sole and adequate explanation for the present instance, viz., that war was being carried on, and Estimates for this land of expenditure were made which were not in harmony with the ordinary financial practice of the country. There could be only one opinion, that it was not desirable that these enormous sums should be carried over for two years. There was no mystery about the debt. When the railways were taken over by the military, a portion of the money was spent on stores, such as roiling stock, railways, and machinery. The amount had been written off, as if paid for out of the Army Votes. Though it was believed that this sum, and a further sum, would be received by way of credit from the Transvaal Government, it had not been received, and as far as the War Office was concerned, the transaction was at an end. The Colonial Office had been in communication with the Transvaal Government, and a counterclaim had been lodged. He was not in a position to give the details of the counterclaim; but, whatever its nature, it must be obvious that it was not a question upon which the Government could sue the Transvaal in the County Court. The subject was one for negotiation and correspondence between the two Administrations; but the authorities at home had been informed that, until the counterclaim was adjusted, payment would not be made by the Transvaal Government.

MR. RITCHIE (Croydon)

said the real question was whether the country should wipe off this large amount of expenditure or not. He had no doubt that his right hon. friend had said all that it was possible for him to say; but, having regard to the great help which this House had given to the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony, and the enormous amount of money which the House had freely voted to assist them, he thought that they had a right to expect at least fair treatment in a matter of this kind, where the money had been spent for their benefit, and would largely increase the value of their assets. The word "counterclaim" was not used in what he should call its ordinary acceptation. When he was in office, and engaged in controversy with the Colonial Office on this matter, he must say that he had never seen what he should call a "counterclaim"—that was to say, something set out in figures. As far as that kind of "counterclaim" was concerned, it had not existed while he was responsible for the finances of the country. It was perfectly true that the Transvaal Government said that they ought not to be called upon to pay this sum because of the damage which our troops had inflicted. But the claim was never a substantial one; it was rather in the nature of an afterthought. The Government ought to be really very firm with the Transvaal Government in maintaining that this claim should be paid. They ought not to be put off with the mere assertion of a "counterclaim," but should insist on facts and figures which could be tested and considered. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the Government ought really to be very firm in maintaining that this claim should be paid. He hoped that the War Office and the Treasury would be able to get greater assistance from the Colonial Office in this matter, and that the Government would not cease to push the claim and endeavour to get some definite facts and figures which would enable them to judge the value of the counterclaim.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)

said this was the third time that the Committee had discussed the item, and every time it was discussed it became more serious both as regarded finance and also with regard to the prospects of getting payment. After what had fallen from the Secretary of State for War he hoped that the Committee would have some information from the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Secretary of the Treasury as to what the actual position was. They now knew that the War Office had washed its hands of the matter altogether and did not care two straws whether the money was paid or not.

*MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

said he did not say that.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

said that the right hon. Gentleman stated that the War Office had nothing more to do with the matter.

*MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

said what he said was that the War Office had nothing to do with the money as it would not come to them.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

said that at all events, as far as the War Office was concerned they had practically no interest in the matter. The two Departments that were now practically interested were the Colonial Office and the Treasury, and the Committee would like to hear something regarding the matter from the latter Department. After what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken it was quite evident that if they were to depend on the Colonial Office they would be leaning on a very broken reed, and, therefore, they would have to depend on the Treasury. He was sorry the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not present. He did not blame the right hon. Gentleman, because he did not know the matter was coming on; but perhaps the Secretary to the Treasury would be able to answer this point. When they were discussing this question the other day, the Committee was not aware that the claim was in such a parlous condition; and, therefore, they did not pay the same attention as they otherwise would to what fell from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Now they found that the War Office was not interested in the claim, and that the Colonial Office was in favour of the Colonies. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the other day that the figures of the claim were agreed on as between the Colonies and the Home Government and were accepted by both as final. Subsequently, he said, a counterclaim was raised; and he added that correspondence was still proceeding on the subject, and that at present the Treasury was supporting the War Office in its claim. What did the right hon. Gentleman mean by "at present?" What was the point on which the Treasury were weakening? What guarantee had the Committee that the claim would be pressed? He remembered when the matter of the claim was first raised, there was then no counterclaim. It was raised on the financial report of Lord Milner in which he explained the grounds on which he based his proposal for lending the Transvaal £35,000,000, and this was one of the items to be regarded as part of the loan. It was put down as a disputed claim to a certain extent but not to the full extent. It might be a little more or a little less, but the general claim was not disputed. Why was not the amount stopped from the loan before handing it over to the Transvaal? If the matter were in dispute the amount could be put on one side and need not be applied to any other purpose. That would be a simple way of obtaining the money if the claim were upheld; whereas, at present, there was very little chance of getting it. As had been stated by the hon. Member for Oldham the Committee was absolutely entitled to information as to the nature of this counterclaim. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon said it was of a most nebulous description; and that, as far as he was concerned, it was a sort of a general idea that this country having claimed £1,000,000 the Transvaal should also claim £1,000,000. He wished to know whether the Government had got any particulars with reference to this counterclaim, and whether they considered it of any real substance. He was entitled to press for information on this point, especially having regard to what fell from the Chancellor of the Exchequer a few days ago. If the Committee voted £900,000 now the claim would probably be lost to the country for ever.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

said he had no hesitation in saying that these Supplementary War Office Estimates were the most monstrous that had ever been presented to the House of Commons, and this particular item was the most monstrous item of all. It now appeared that this was a matter of responsibility as between the Colonial Office the War Office, and the Treasury. It would be remembered that the late Colonial Secretary said that this £900,000 would be a first charge on the railway. Was it a first charge on the railway? If it were, undoubtedly they would get the money, no matter what the counterclaim might be. But, with the Secretary of State for War washing his hands of it, no one knew what were the particulars of the counterclaim, and they had it gravely before them as a serious definite matter which they ought to take into consideration in estimating the propriety of voting this £900,000. He thought that was not treating the House of Commons seriously, and it seemed to him that the Committee ought not to vote the money until they had a satisfactory and complete explanation from either the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Secretary of the Treasury. What was the character of this counterclaim? Why did it exist? What was it for? Was it for the construction of railways or loss of rolling stock, or was it, as some of them suspected, a purely bogus claim set up to meet the just claim £900,000. The Secretary of State for War said that the Comptroller and Auditor-General made no reference to this matter. The right hon. Gentleman did the Comptroller and Auditor-General a very great injustice, because he did remark on this very item. Referring to outstanding questions, of which this was one, he said that, in view of the very exceptional pressure, he considered it preferable not to suggest disallowances with regard to expenditure still the subject of inquiry, but to treat such expenditure as subject to later substantiation in full and adjustment. Therefore the Comptroller and Auditor-General was by no means blind to the existence of this matter; and although he allowed the item he did it under the impression that further explanation would be forthcoming. The Government now, however, asked the Committee to vote this £900,000 before the item was substantiated. It appeared to him that such a demand had never been previously made. If there was a counterclaim they ought to know its nature and what it consisted of, and then they could judge whether it was well founded. The Committee was entitled before voting this money to have a full explanation from the Treasury Bench, and he thought the debate had proceeded sufficiently long to permit of the presence of some official of the Treasury who would be able to give that explanation.

*SIR JOSEPH LEESE (Lancashire, Accrington)

said that on previous occasions when the item was discussed he had asked for particulars of the counterclaim, and he was glad that the House now demanded those particulars. If the particulars could no be given surely the correspondence on the subject, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the other day was proceeding, might be laid on the Table, so that the House could judge for itself in what position the country was as to this acknowledged debt. Let the House see the correspondence before they took over this bad debt of £900,000. If it was a good debt the country must have the benefit of it, if not they ought to have some information as to whether it was completely cancelled by the counterclaim or only in part, and, if so, to what extent.

MR. AINSWORTH (Argyll)

said that when we took possession of the country the railways passed into the hands of the Government. We spent something like £900,000 upon them to put them in good order. Against that we handed them over to the Transvaal Government for £1,250,000. We ought to have held them until we got the money. Unfortunately we did not do that, but there was a definite statement from Lord Milner that the £900,000 was an indebtedness, and what he asked now was whether we were going to get anything out of that £900,000 and how the £1,250,000 was to be recovered by this country.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,) Worcestershire, E.

said the reason why the Vote asked for was only £900,000 and not £1,250,000 was because the item of £350,000 had already been voted and it would be an absurd proceeding to ask the House to vote one amount twice over. This was money which we claimed to recover from the Transvaal Government, but it was notorious that the Transvaal Government, at the present time, were not in a position to pay.

MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL

here interjected a remark which did not reach the Gallery.

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

The hon. Member for Oldham need not have been in such a hurry to interrupt.

MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL

said he only wished to state that inability to pay had nothing to do with the validity of the claim.

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

said it had a good deal to do with the pressing of it. This was a valid claim which we had against the Transvaal Government, and that was admitted by the right hon. Member for West Bristol and the right hon. Member for Croydon.

MR. RITCHIE

said his view was that if there was a counterclaim the House ought to be told what that counterclaim was; the general statement that there was a counterclaim meant nothing at all.

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

said both his predecessors and himself held this to be a valid claim, which they ought to recover from the Transvaal Government when it was in a position to pay, but admittedly that Government was not now in that position, and therefore he did not think it was a matter of immediate urgency. Coming to the counter claim, which had been described by the right hon. Member for Croydon as nebulous, and which the right hon. Gentle man said they ought to know the details of, that counterclaim was in respect to damage done to the old rolling stock and old works, while the railways were in our possession, in distinction from the new rolling stock and new works which we had provided and for which we claimed £900,000. The details of the counterclaim had not reached him, but he had disputed it on principle quite apart from the details, as it did not seem to him to be well founded. The correspondence was still proceeding between the Transvaal and the home Government in I respect to this matter, and he could not safely enter into the details of that correspondence while it was still un-finished. Under the circumstances he hoped the House would not press for further details at present.

MR. ASQUITH (Fifeshire, E.)

asked I whether the counterclaim had ever been formulated in figures?

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

No.

MR. ASQUITH

Not even approximately?

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

No, Sir. So far as I know we are not in possession of any details of the counterclaim.

MR. McCRAE

asked whether it was not the case that the £1,250,000 which included the £900,000 was to be paid out of the £35,000,000 loan. If that were so it disposed of the question of ability to pay.

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

said that that did not disprove the point. In any case, the Transvaal had not yet got the £35,000,000, as there were still £5,000,000 of the loan unissued. He had already told the House that he could give them no details as to the counterclaim at the present time, and had promised to give full information on the arrival of a promised communication from South Africa. He had also explained that his objection to the counterclaim was one of principle and not of detail. An hon. Member had asked whether the Government would insist on getting this money, and had suggested that it was absurd to talk about a matter in dispute or in negotiation between this Government and the Government of the Transvaal, because after all the Government of the Transvaal were the Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury Bench. No doubt as long as the Transvaal remained a Crown colony the Government in the House of Commons could exercise considerable influence over it, but immediately it became a self-governing colony, which he understood to be the policy of hon. Members opposite, that influence would become less. In any case, lie did not intend to depart from the position he had taken up, viz. that we ought to recover this money when the Transvaal was in a position to pay, and the fact that the House voted this money in order to place its own books in a proper condition would not, or at least ought not, in any way to prejudice our power to recover the money from the Transvaal. If anything prejudiced that recovery it would be the speeches which had been made during the debate. [Cries of "Oh, oh."] One Gentleman after another had expressed to the House his conviction that the money would never be recovered and that we were on a fool's errand in attempting its recovery. He deprecated language of that kind. It afforded some justification for the course pursued by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon in delaying the presentation of this Estimate. Probably the right hon. Gentleman's reason for taking that course was that he did not think discussion in that House would assist him to recover the debt, and the debate had shown how well founded that view was.

MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs)

regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have thought fit to lecture the House on the manner in which its debates should be conducted, especially in view of the fact that although a matter vitally affecting own Department had been under discussion, the right hon. Gentleman had been so discourteous as to come in only at the fag end of the debate. The more this matter was examined into the more absurd appeared the position of the Government. The suggestion of a counterclaim was treated by ex-Chancellors of the Exchequer as a "put-up" job or an afterthought. The fact that after two years correspondence, a despatch containing full particulars was said to be on the way to this country was surely a reason for postponing the Vote for a few weeks. The truth was that the counterclaim was a mere bogey and could not be sustained. When the money was wanted there was no suggestion that the colonies would be unable to pay, and it was very ungracious on their part that they should suggest any counterclaim against expenditure incurred on their behalf during the war. No reason whatever had been shown why the matter should not be cleared up before the Vote was agreed to.

MR. TOULMIN (Bury, Lancashire)

said that what the House desired was a complete and clear statement on behalf of the Cabinet concerning this matter. The question should not be decided out of any feeling of charity towards the Transvaal. The present financial position of that colony had no bearing whatever on the justice or injustice of the claims it had made. If money was to be given to the Transvaal it should be by a direct Vote. The matter had passed through the hands of three Chancellors of the Exchequer, and surely it was time the question of liability was settled. There ought not to be any difficulty with regard to laying before Parliament the correspondence on the subject, as it was not a matter of negotiation with some foreign Power where delicate international questions had to be considered; it was a matter concerning a colony for the government of which this country was responsible, and no harm could possibly be done by placing Parliament in possession of all the facts. The House had not yet sufficient information to justify the granting of this money, and the matter might very well be postponed for

a little longer in order that the necessary details might be given.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 226; Noes, 128. (Division List No. 56.)

AYES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E. Knowles, Sir Lees
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers Laurie, Lieut.-General
Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden Doxford, Sir William Theodore Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)
Anson, Sir William Reynell Duke, Henry Edward Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)
Arkwright, John Stanhope Durning- Lawrence, Sir Edwin Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R
Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O. Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham
Arrol, Sir William Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Faber, George Denison (York) Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r Llewellyn, Evan Henry
Bain, Colonel James Robert Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
Baird, John George Alexander Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Long, Rt. Hn. Walter Bristol, S.
Balcarres, Lord Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)
Baldwin, Alfred Fison, Frederick William Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r) Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose Macdona, John dimming
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon Maconochie, A. W.
Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W. (Leeds Flannery, Sir Fortescue Manners, Lord Cecil
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.) Flower, Sir Ernest Martin, Richard Biddulph
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Forster, Henry William Maxwell, Rt Hn. Sir H. E. (Wigt'n
Bartley, Sir George C. T. Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W. Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Fyler, John Arthur Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Bignold, Arthur Gardner, Ernest Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)
Blundell, Colonel Henry Garfit, William Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow
Bond, Edward Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H. Morpeth, Viscount
Boscawon, Arthur Griffith Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Morrell, George Herbert
Boulnois, Edmund Gordon, Hn. J. E.(Elgin & Nairn) Morrison, James Archibald
Brassey, Albert Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'inlets Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop Mount, William Arthur
Butcher, John George Gore Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc) Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.
Campbell, Rt. Hn. J.A.(Glasgow Goschen, Hon. George Joachim Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham (Bute
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Graham, Henry Robert Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Cautley, Henry Strother Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire) Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.) Myers, William Henry
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Greville, Hon. Ronald Newdegate, Francis A. N.
Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Worc. Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. Nicholson, William Graham
Chapman, Edward Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Charrington, Spencer Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)
Churchill, Winston Spencer Hare, Thomas Leigh Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley
Clare, Octavius Leigh Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th) Percy, Earl
Clive, Captain Percy A. Haslam, Sir Alfred S. Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Coates, Edward Feetham Haslett, Sir James Horner Plummer, Walter R.
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Hatch, Earnest Frederick Geo. Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Heath, James (Staffords, N.W. Pretyman, Ernest George
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Heaton, John Henniker Pryce-Jones Lt.-Col. Edward
Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready Helder, Augustus Pym, C. Guy
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athele Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Randles, John S.
Compton, Lord Alwyne Hickman, Sir Alfred Rankin, Sir James
Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas Hoare, Sir Samuel Ratcliff, R. F.
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) Hogg, Lindsay Reid, James (Greenock)
Cripps, Charles Alfred Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside Remnant, James Farquharson
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Houston, Robert Paterson Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge)
Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham) Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Dalkeith, Earl of Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Hudson, George Bickersteth Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Davenport, William Bromley Hunt, Rowland Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter
Denny, Colonel Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton Round, Rt. Hon. James
Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tower Hamlets) Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. Royds, Clement Molyneux
Dickson, Charles Scott Kenyon, Hon. Geo T. (Denbigh) Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Kerr, John Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C. Keswick, William Sandys, Lieut-Col. Thos. Myles
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Kimber, Henry Sasson, Sir Edward Albert
Saunderson, Rt Hn.Col. Edw. J. Stone, Sir Benjamin Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) Talbot Lord E. (Chicester) Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne
Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln) Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Ox'd Univ. Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight Thorburn, Sir Walter Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Seton-Karr, Sir Henry Thornton, Percy M. Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.
Sharpe, William Edward T. Tollemache, Henry James Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Simeon, Sir Barrington Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath
Sinclair, Louis (Romford) Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward Wolff, Gustay Wilhelm
Skewes-Cox, Thomas Tuke, Sir John Batty Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. R. Stuart
Sloan, Thomas Henry Valentia, Viscount Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Smith, H. C (North'mb. Tyneside Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter) Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) Walker, Col. William Hall
Spear, John Ward Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H. TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset) Warde, Colonel C. E. Sir Alexander Acland-Hood,
Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.) Webb, Colonel William George and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.
Stock, James Henry Welby, Sir Charles G. E(Notts.
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) Hammond, John Partington, Osward
Ainsworth, John Stirling Hayden, John Patrick Paulton, James Mellor
Allen, Charles P. Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. Price, Robert John
Ashton, Thomas Gair Holland, Sir William Henry Rea, Russell
Asquith, Rt. Hon Herbert Henry Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) Reddy, M.
Barran, Rowland Hirst Horniman, Frederick John Redmond, John E.(Waterford)
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. Redmond, William (Clare)
Bell, Richard Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk. Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries
Boland, John Jones, William (Carnarvonshire Rickett, J. Compton
Brigg, John Joyce, Michael Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) Kearley, Hudson E. Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Kitson, Sir James Robson, William Snowdon
Burke, E. Haviland Lambert, George Roche, John
Burns, John Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) Roe, Sir Thomas
Buxton, Sydney Charles Layland-Barratt, Francis Runciman, Walter
Caldwell, James Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Leng, Sir John Shackleton, David James
Causton, Richard Knight Lloyd-George, David Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Cawley, Frederick Lundon, W. Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Clancy, John Joseph Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Condon, Thomas Joseph MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Shipman, Dr. John G.
Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark) MacVeagh, Jeremiah Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Crean, Eugene M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Crombie, John William M'Hugh, Patrick A. Spencer, Rt. Hn. C R. (Northants
Cullinan, J. M'Kean, John Strachey, Sir Edward
Dalziel, James Henry M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) Sullivan Donal
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Mooney, John J. Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Delany, William Moulton, John Fletcher Toulmin, George
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.) Murnaghan, George Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Nannetti, Joseph P. Wallace, Robert
Donelan, Captain A. Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Norman, Henry Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Duncan, J. Hastings Nussey, Thomas Willans Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Ellice, Capt E. C(S. And'w'sBghs O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney
Emmott, Alfred O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Weir, James Galloway
Esmonde, Sir Thomas O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N. White, George (Norfolk)
Eve, Harry Trelawney O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Ffrench, Peter O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Whiteley, George (York, W, R.)
Flynn, James Christopher O'Dowd, John Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Furness, Sir Christopher O'Kelly, James (Roscommon N. Young, Samuel
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John O'Malley, William
Goddard, Daniel Ford O'Mara, James TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. M'Crae and Mr. Whiteley
Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick) O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Parrott, William

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee, in the said Resolution."

And, it being after half-past Seven of the clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed To-morrow.