§ Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Question [26th June], "That the conduct of His Majesty's Government in connection with the supply and disposal of Stores and the Sales and Refunds to Contractors in South Africa at the end of the War, and their failure to inquire promptly into and deal with those transactions, deserve the censure of this House."—(Sir Robert Reid.)—
§ Question again proposed.
§ SIR CARNE RASCH
Mr. Speaker, before the adjournment I ventured to say that in my opinion the usual steps appear to have been taken that always are taken in matters of this kind. I do not propose to take up the time of the House at any length, but I must ask the indulgence of hon. Members for a short time because I have had some experience in these contract Committees. I was instrumental in getting the Committee on Contracts appointed by the Government in March, 1900. The Report of the Committee was not particularly satisfactory and I hope the Report of the Committee new appointed will be more satisfactory. In the Committee on Contracts appointed in 1900. we had to examine and report on the stores shipped to the front nine months prior in the beginning of the war. The result was not particularly striking. We found that everything was for the best in the best of all possible War Offices and that nobody was to blame. We proved that the hay went bad of itself and that we could blame nobody and do nothing, and shortly afterwards the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of the Committee was called to another place. On this particular occasion, too, I also had the pleasure of telling the House that I was never surprised at anything the War Office did, and that I had consistently opposed them ever since I had been in the House.
I do not think in this case the War Office is wrong, and I am Certain the Government are not to blame. But 170 I was surprised to find that a general officer, by his own confession, knew nothing of what was going on in this connection, and I thought it was odd that when financial experts were sent out to South Africa by the War Office to report on the question of finance that they should not see what was going on under their noses. I myself, at this particular period, put a Question to the Secretary of State for War calling attention to this matter of the selling of these stores which the War Office appeared to know nothing about, and of which very few people in the country had any notion. I cannot understand why, when there was a plethora of stores at the central depot and none in the Transvaal, and next to none in the Orange Free State, the stores should not have been transferred instead of being sold. Would it not have been better to have sent the stores to the Orange Free State and the Transvaal rather than to have sold them as they did? I certainly cannot see why we should sell with the left hand and buy in again at double the price with the right. What the country would like to know is, was the Government right in trusting men who had betrayed their trust, what was the real amount of loss caused by the sale of these stores, and whether the Government did their best with the not very efficient weapon to their hands.
So far as the Report goes, it is not my purpose to say much about it, but, as one connected with the Press, I should say it is rather an excellent piece of picturesque and descriptive reporting than a great State Paper. I do not think the Government is to blame, because I do not think that any Government could have done more to sweep out the Augean stables at Pall Mall and put the War Office on a proper footing than the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the present Government—The mills of God grind slowlyBut they grind exceeding small,and the mills of the War Office grind very slowly also, but I think they have made considerable progress during the last nine years. Neither the Government nor the War Office are to blame, but rather the man in the street and the 171 House of Commons. Everybody knows that when an Army debate is engaging the attention of the House everybody flies to the furthest corner of the building as if the plague was in this Chamber, and so far as the country is concerned everybody knows that for the last 200 years it has been impossible to get the country as a body to take an intelligent interest in the Army at all. It is abandoned by the country, which pays the men who do the fighting for it as little as it can. and grumbles when it pays the bill. We had a considerable amount of flash music-hall enthusiasm when the war was on—"killing Kruger with your mouth—"by men who would not pay 6d. towards it, and directly the war was over the Army was dropped like a hot potato. As to the present condition of things which make us the laughing stock of Europe, as we are in this matter, that is not the fault of the War Office or the Government, but the fault of the neglect of the Army by the country ever since the Army was instituted.
§ DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.)
The balance of argument in favour of the defence so far has rested on the speech of the Secretary of State for India. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman questioned the competence of the Butler Committee and General Butler in particular, and his case was to sweep that away and the responsibility of the Government disappears entirely. Now I traverse that at once. If the Butler Committee had not been appointed the responsibility of the Government would have been as great. I do not intend to attack the Government on the ground of the Butler Committee Report—but on the Report of the Elgin Commission of 1902–3, and on the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General of January 31st this year. And I must say these two Reports constitute in my opinion a monumental record of administrative incapacity. I do not think there is anything more monumental than the incompetency displayed throughout the whole of this miserable South African affair, than the patience of the British public. Again and again have Reports been issued which have filled the public with shame and dismay at the disclosures of grate incompetence on the part of the 172 Government. The public grumbles for a few weeks and then, having footed the Bill for the millions out of which it is fleeced, they have gone away consoling themselves for some mysterious and inscrutable reason with the reflection that it will be just as bad or perhaps worse next time. And so, Mr. Speaker, will it be so long as the public attitude is what it is. So long as the public's only punishment for incapacity on the most colossal scale is to shrug its shoulders and say, "Oh, let bygones be bygones," things will be just as bad in the future as they have been in the past. To "let bygones be bygones" is a fine sporting instinct; but there are times when you dare not indulge it.
I cannot pursue the subject at any length, but take the record of three years prior to the outbreak of the war. What was the experience of the Government? They were literally bombarded in 1896, 1897– 1898 with precise and detailed information as to the Boer preparations for the war. Sir William Butler, Sir John Ardagh, Major Altham, Mr. Conyngham Green, Admiral Harris, Sir Andrew Noble, and scores of others, sent week after week the most detailed statements of the state of affairs we should have to meet. What happened to those statements I do not know; nobody appears to have heard them, but as a matter of history, I know that the campaign had not opened three weeks before our supplies were all exhausted and we were brought to the verge of national disaster. What did Sir George Taubman Goldie report—That only an extraordinary combination of fortunate circumstances, external and internal, saved the Empire during the early months of 1900.And Viscount Esher went further and added the note to the Report—The condition in 1899 as disclosed in Sir Henry Brackenbury's memorandum shows that either the Secretary of State was guilty of culpable neglect or that he was in ignorance of the fact.What has happened since then? Was anybody brought to book? Certainly not. The Secretary of State for War was promoted to the office of Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and made Leader of the Government Party in another place. Now take what happened subsequently. Take the matter we are 173 dealing with now, which is only one incident of the contract scandals, bought before the House with the greatest possible detail on January 31st, 1902, by the hon. Member for East Mayo, particularly with reference to the Cold Storage Company. Nothing was done with regard to that. The most specific details were given as to the enormous profit these people were making by selling frozen meat when they had undertaken to sell fresh meat, and a few weeks later the matter was raised in a more acute form. On March 17th the Leader of the Opposition moved—That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into all contracts and purchases made by or on behalf of the Government for His Majesty's forces in South Africa, in respect of remounts, meat, forage, and transport.and he said with great political prescience—What we want to do is to protect the taxpayers' interest, which is our prime duty; and that protection can only be given by inquiring now while the matter is red hot.He was hotly opposed by the Government for the reason that, although the war was over in 1900, for the purposes of the general election, when it came to a question of inquiry in 1902, the war was not over, and the Secretary of State for War, the present Secretary of State for India, then said it would be playing into the hands of our enemies in the field to enter into the. question. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot finish a war for the purposes of an election and open it afresh when inquiry is demanded. I remember what the Secretary of State for India said in March, 1902, when this Commission was asked for. It was this—I do appeal to all Members of the House who desire the campaign to be satisfactorily carried through to support the Government, not in burking any inquiry at the present moment for their own advantage, but in postponing it to a season when it can be properly carried through, being confident in the interval that everything which devotion to the public service can do will be done to provide our Army in the field with those things which will make it efficient with the least possible cost to the public.The disclosures of the Comptroller and Auditor-General's Report of 1904–5 show how that promise has been carried out for the four years. The answer to the refusal of the right hon. Gentleman and 174 the Government grant an inquiry in 1902 is to be found not only in the Report of the Butler Committee, but in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. I should like to know how many millions have been wasted as the result of the refusal of the Government to grant the inquiry in March, 1902. The hon. Member for King's Lynn says it is about £6,000,000. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India took one small point and said we had bought material to the amount of £1,270,000, and sold it at a loss of £50,000—a loss of 40 per cent, on the transactions. The right hon. Gentleman took that small point out of the whole of this expenditure of £250,000,000, and then he laid his hand upon his heart and said, "What fine sound business men we are." If the right hon. Gentleman conducted his own private affairs in that way he would find he would make the acquaintance of the Official Receiver in Bankruptcy in about a fortnight. Nobody was punished. The right hon. Gentleman was promoted to be Secretary of State for India as a reward for his great incompetence. The Government has been conspicuously consistent in all these dealings. Their attitude has been one of supercilious indifference and unconcern either to Parliamentary or public opinion. So long as that attitude could be maintained the Government maintained it.
The Government has had to be pushed on in all these matters by the House of Commons, which has had to wring replies out of them. Take one proof of what I say; take the specific cases dealt with by the Butler Committee which were also dealt with in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, which was issued to Members on Friday, March 10th. Those who read that Report saw that it was an appalling document. I asked a Question on Monday, March 13, of which I had given private notice, as to whether the Prime Minister would grant facilities for the discussion of this Report issued on the previous Friday. What was the Answer I received? The right hon. Gentleman replied—As I have regretfully had to say more than once, in the present state of public business, it is impossible for me to grant the facilities asked for.175 Then the Press began to take notice of the Report, and to comment upon it, and it was then seen to be a State document of the gravest importance. A storm began to brew. I put the Question down again on Thursday, March 16 four days after, and this was the reply I received—In my opinion the matter of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General is of a very serious character and requires to be thoroughly sifted. The very last thing I desire is that the House should be excluded from any legitimate opportunity of probing the matter to the bottom.That is the Answer I received on the Thursday following the statement on the Monday that no facilities could be given. Why this sudden change? Because the Government saw that there was going to be trouble over this matter and that the public were going to take a real interest in it.
Now I turn to the speech of the present Secretary of State for War to deal with one point he made this afternoon. The light hon. Gentleman stated this afternoon that he did not know of this dual system of sales to the Government from a contractor and repurchases back from the Government by the contractor until January 7th this year. I accept his statement, but when I turn to the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, issued to this House on March 10th, but signed on January 31st this year, I see on this point the Comptroller and Auditor-General says—In paragraph 82 of last year's Report a brief reference was made to certain large sales and purchases of forage apparently entailing a considerable loss which seemed to require further explanation. Further transactions of a similar nature have been observed in the course of the examination of the accounts for 1903–4, and in March last I drew the attention of the War Office to the different rates at which similar stores brought to account in the same month had been sold to, and purchased from Contractor 'A.' To this query, which will be found printed in the appendix, no reply has been received.It is a very serious thing for a conscientious Minister to be left in such a position as to have to get up and say that he did not know about this until January 7th this year.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
I said that I did not know anything had arisen out 176 of it calling for inquiry. We made the inquiry, it is quite true.
§ DR. MACNAMARA
If the War Office made the inquiry why did they not send it on to the Comptroller and Auditor-General?
§ DR. MACNAMARA
It was not received when this Report was issued on January 31st. Remember the inquiry was fifteen months before this. Why did it take fifteen months to transmit? Now Contractor B and Contractor C are similar cases. I need not go into the details except to say that oats were sold to the Government at 17s. 10d. per 100 1bs. and repurchased at 11s. All this is set out in great detail in this Report and the information must have been in the possession of the War Office in March, 1904. The right hon. Gentleman told the hon. Member for Monmouth on Friday last that those firms were no longer contractors. Pressed with further inquiry on Friday last as to when these contractors' names had been struck off the list of Army contractors, the right hon. Gentleman answered "on June 1st this year." Why did the War Office take fifteen months to strike off their names? There is one other point. If the War Office was not familiar with all this, has not the right hon. Gentleman any comment to make on the evidence of Colonel Morgan before the Butler Committee? Question No. 5150 was addressed to Colonel Morgan by Colonel Had field, and attention was drawn to the following telegram sent out in September, 1903, addressed to the general at Pretoria—Central Supply Account, June last, shows large sales of hay, bran, mealies, and meal to contractors, and purchases of same class articles from the same persons at higher prices; telegraph explanation of institution of this, and report by post.The reply arrived in October stating that Meyer, Limited, had purchased for large sums hay, bran, and mealies, and that on December 4th last a tender was accepted from the same firm to supply first-class goods. Public money was 177 saved by the transaction. My question is, if the present Secretary for War did not know that there was anything to call for explanation till January 7th, 1905, how was it that the War Office sent that telegram in September, 1903, to South Africa calling for this explanation? I accept the right hon. Gentleman's statement that he did not know. But why did he not know? Who was keeping him in the dark?
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
It is perfectly obvious why I did not know of the queries which had been made. The answer to that telegram was regarded at the time as satisfactory, but when the Finance Department came to examine the accounts and vouchers, they considered the explanation was. not satisfactory, and it was because they considered it unsatisfactory that we appointed this Departmental Committee.
§ DR. MACNAMARA
The reply came back on October 1st, 1903, and was deemed to be satisfactory by the then Secretary for State, and yet these people were allowed to go on contracting till June 1st, 1905. I consider the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman most unsatisfactory. This is only one characteristic incident in the whole story of administrative incompetence. I believe that the whole thing was a muddle, that the War Office authorities did not know about it, and that now on June 1st, when the row began, these people were struck off the list. The House of Commons must not be told that fifteen months were allowed to pass without some explanation being given. Take another characteristic incident from the amazing mass of ineptitude. Here is a Parliamentary Paper giving details of stores destroyed in South Africa because of their deterioration, or because they were defective in the first instance. Between 1889 and 1901 £250,000 worth of stores were destroyed, and, with regard to £106,000 worth of that amount the War Office is not in a position to give the names of the contractors who supplied these stores! To whom did they pay the bill? Where are the receipts? They must have the receipts, and yet they cannot tell us the names of the contractors! Take 178 another characteristic instance which had to do with stores. Fifty million rounds of small arms ammunition were found to be unserviceable and completely useless, and they were broken up. Yet the War Office cannot tell us the names of the firms who supplied these 50,000,000 rounds of ammunition. We are bound to come to grief if we go on in this way. But I am quite hopeless of reform. I do not think anything will be done in this matter. Probably the House will reject this vote of censure and we shall go on in the same old way. The Government will be whitewashed; everybody will be whitewashed, just as they were after the terrible Report of the Roebuck Commission fifty years ago. The public will be angry for about six weeks, and then there will be test cricket matches, billiard tournaments, and bridge problems, and all will be forgotten. But one fine day we British muddlers will run up against a thoroughly and scientifically organised Power like Japan, and then John Bull will awake in real earnest, cursing the happy-go-lucky folly and unconcern which in the end will have been his undoing.
§ SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE (Hudders-field)
A serious feature of this debate is the very Right-hearted way in which the present Secretary for War has treated a very serious matter. We are not discussing the individual responsibility of the officers in South Africa or at the War Office; we are discussing the responsibility of His Majesty's Ministers for a very tremendous waste of money. The question is—Has the indictment of my hon. and learned friend been brought home to the conviction of this House? I have not the slightest doubt that if the vote were to be taken by ballot every Member in the House would be found against the Government. Not a single Member on the Ministerial side of the House, who was not officially connected with the Government, has stood up in his place to defend the Government. And certainly the defence put forward by the right hon. Gentleman who was primarily responsible, the Secretary for India, and by the present Secretary for War is not any real defence to the charges made against them. So far as the 179 knowledge of the House is concerned the dual system of contracting was the primary cause of the enormous waste of money to the nation. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India, under whose administration the dual system was set up, has admitted to-day that he knew nothing about the dual contract system, and that it was wholly indefensible. That fact in itself goes to condemn the Government. The right hon. Gentleman knew nothing whatever about it, and yet he, in a mysterious manner, hints that there are parties of whom we know nothing yet to be brought to account. So far as it can be called a defence, it is the weakest defence ever offered by a responsible Administration to this House and the country. I ask every business man in the House whether, if they were directors of a company and the secretary or managing director were guilty of such larches, would not the shareholders insist at once on such a secretary or such a managing director being dismissed from the management of the company? Why should we not apply the same action to the political directors of the nation? In September, 1903, it was known to the War Office that there were grave irregularities in respect to these contracts which had resulted in the large loss, and a telegram was sent to Sir Neville Lyttelton, the representative of the Government in South Africa, to know what was the explanation; and yet to day the director at the War Office stood up and said that he knew nothing about this dual system of contractors until December, 1904.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
I did not know anything at that date arising out of the dual system which called for action.
§ SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE
Did you, or did you not, know? I desire to put my Question with-every courtesy, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will have the courtesy to give me a proper Answer.
§ SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE
Did the right hon. Gentleman know before the month of December last, that on October 1st, 1903, this telegram was sent by the War Office to General Lyttelton?
§ SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE
Then when did the right hon. Gentleman first become aware of this inquiry being made by the War Office at the end of September, 1903?
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
I have already stated that as soon as I became aware there was any irregularity I took proceedings by instituting an inquiry. I was aware in June and July that there was matter for inquiry, and, as I have already informed the hon. Member, inquiry was being made. I was not aware at all for months that this telegram had passed. After all, it was one of thousands of transactions which were going through the Financial Department of the War Office in connection with transactions which had taken place long before I had anything to do with it. I had nothing whatever to do with the initiation of these transactions. When the vouchers came to hand to be checked I took what steps I could to bee the checking was effective.
§ SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE
I gather from that statement that the right hon. Gentleman really did not know of that inquiry by the War Office in September, 1903, until the month of June, 1901. It is something to get such an admission as that. The right hon. Gentleman then caused further inquiries to be made in South Africa and got no reply until October 31st, 1904.
§ MR. ARNOLD FORSTER
That is not what I said; that is not the fact. I said the final reply was not given until the date I named. I explained what took place; that there had been intermediate correspondence in order to enable the authorities in South Africa to give us their reply.
§ SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE
Between June, 1904, and October 1st, 1904, correspondence was being carried on on the subject of these contracts, and then the authorities in South Africa said: "Why, you have in England Captain Limond who could tell you all about this. What are you writing to us about?"
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
That is not the fact. I s id the authorities in South Africa we had communicated with were not able to answer this inquiry without communicating with Captain Limond, and when they bad communicated with him they communicated with us.
§ SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE
If the answer is that the War Office had nothing whatever to do with it, that is not the view which the country will take.
§ MR. ARNOLD FORSTER
They had nothing whatever to do with the fact that the authorities in South Africa thought it necessary, in order to make out their reply, to communicate with Captain Limond. They had nothing whatever to do with it. They were not aware of it. The hon. Member has no right to travesty that into a statement that the War Office had nothing whatever to do with the matter.
§ SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE
My only wish is to elicit information from the right hon. Gentleman. I understood him to say that Captain Limond was in England, and that he could give information. Why did the right hon. Gentleman not get hold of Captain Limond and get to the bottom of that matter at that time. It seems to me that the War Office did not wish to take a shortened cut to get at the bottom of any case. Everything that they have done shows the ineptitude of the War Office. The real origin of this matter 182 was the establishment of the system of dual contracts, and the ineptitude of the War Office in dealing with it. If the Quartermaster-General's original view, that there ought to be no local contracts, had been acted upon, there would never have been this dual system.
Another very extraordinary action on the part of the War Office was that, having ordered monthly returns of all sales and supplies to be sent, that was not carried out. That would have formed a most substantial check against this wastage and the, consequent less. I want to know who was responsible for the War Office cancelling that order in April, 1903.
§ MR. BRODRICK
, rising amidst OPPOSITION cries of "Answer!": I cannot name in this House, when the Commission is about to sit, names which will be brought before that Commission. I have my own views who is responsible; the Commission must decide.
§ SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE
The Commission will deal with that point as affecting other individuals, but my point is that this is a serious matter for His Majesty's Ministers. As the right hon. Gentleman is responsible to this House, we have the right to ask him why there was cancelled on April, 24th 1903, an order for the return every month of the sales and stores in South Africa.
§ MR. BRODRICK
I entirely decline to reply to these interrogatories. The Leader of the Opposition has chosen to impeach the Government on this question at the moment that the whole question is placed before a Commission. Am I to lay down before the decision what is or is not my view as to the responsibility attaching to certain persons? I know the persons and I know the facts.
§ MR. BRODRICK
I am not in a position to do it, and I cannot do it. If I am not in a position to do it, it is because I am in the hands of those who have chosen to impeach the Government at this moment.
§ SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE
This position is most extraordinary. It is treating the House like a lot of children. Hon. Members Opposite may support the Government in the lobby with their votes, but I am perfectly certain the nation at large will not do so. The right hon. Gentleman was the managing director of this concern at that time, and stood up in the House and said he knew why that order was cancelled, but he declined to tell the House of Commons why. If hon. Members opposite after that could go into the lobby in support of the Government, there was an end to wise and prudent administration. Mr. Flynn, the officer sent out to South Africa on purpose to look into the administration of that matter, attributed the loss caused to the public to placing in the position of Director of Supplies an officer who, in his opinion, was obviously unequal to the post. The right hon. Gentleman was responsible for that, and that incapacity was not limited to the Director of Supplies. It extended to the Commander-in-Chief whom they sent to South Africa. General Lyttelton convicted himself as an incompetent officer, so far as those supplies were concerned, by his own evidence. The vague way he answered questions, and his forgetful-ness on all material points, showed that he was no more capable of managing that matter than one of His Majesty's Ministers. A most extraordinary procedure took place. Meyer took all the stocks of oats at £127,000. He took them over under contract, having previously entered into a contract to sell back what he had bought. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No, no!"] But that is the evidence. I can give the exact dates. Meyer's tender was submitted on October 10th, and accepted on November 25th. Having secured the right to have all this forage he submits a tender to buy from us on December 4th. That is accepted on January 10th, although a fortnight before telegrams had gone forth giving instructions to hand over the whole supply at 11s. per 100 1bs., to Meyer. Having secured the right to have all this forage from the Government, and having become responsible for this large sum of money, Meyer discovered that some of the oats were bad—or rather, that is the allegation, though there is not the slightest 184 tittle of evidence in support of it. He made a claim in respect to these alleged bad oats, and was given a refund of £21,000. He actually got a cheque for this amount before we received a farthing of money from him. But my complaint in this matter is against the General Officer Commanding. When General Lyttelton was asked how it was that such a cheque could be given without his authority he replied, "There may have been a practice of writing on a paper 'G. O. C. approves, but it does not follow that I had seen it." If you have a commanding officer carrying on a system like that, it is not surprising that these large sums of money should have disapeared in South Africa in the way they have done. I should like to know, apropos of what the Secretary of State for India has said this afternoon, when he tried to belittle the figures as to the loss to the nation as against the five or six millions we un doubtedly did lose—
§ SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE
I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the War Office did not advise the right hon. Member for Croydon, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, that there would be five or six millions of money resulting from these resales?
§ SIR. JAMES WOODHOUSE
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon is not in his place or I would have asked him the question. Perhaps we shall get that important piece of evidence, which I believe exists, established by the Royal Commission. [At this moment Mr. RITCHIE entered the House and took his seat.] I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman in his place, and I will repeat the statement. I will ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not the fact that, during his tenure of the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, the War Office led him to believe that five or six millions sterling would be forthcoming from the sales of these surplus stores in South Africa?
§ MR. RITCHIE (Croydon)
I do not know that I ought to be interrogated 185 quite in that way. I think I have already stated in the House during one of the financial discussions—I forget which—that I was informed by the War Office, at the time of my considering the Budget, that they hoped to be able to return about six millions, which I expected might pay off some of the Floating Debt.
§ SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE
I thought my recollection was not so bad as the memory of the right hon. Gentleman. I am afraid I have already occupied the attention of the House too long ["No, no !"]—but in conclusion I wish to say that I hope the House will, after due consideration of the whole of the circumstances, come to the conclusion that this is a serious matter for the nation and the Government, and not one to be treated in the light-hearted way which has been adopted by right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
§ MR. McKENNA
I hope that after the statement just made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon that the Secretary for India will reconsider his decision in regard to this debate. The right hon. Gentleman asked the House for this money in order to purchase supplies, and we voted him that money. He stated, in June, 1902, that the value of stores in South Africa was about £7,000,000, and that he hoped to hand over to the Chancellor of the Exchequer between £5,000,00) and £6,000,000 as the result of the sale of these stores. Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that it is his duty to explain to this House why it is that £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 were not paid over. As part of the system of sales and contracts for supplies in South Africa, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India received monthly statements up to the had of October, 1902. He asked for the continuance of those statements, but he did not get them. Will the right hon. Gentleman still, fuse to tell the House, who gave him the money for the supplies and who has a right to ask what he had done with the money, why those statements were not made monthly? [OPPOSITION cries of "Answer, Brodrick."] I appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite to support this demand especially when 186 they are told by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer that £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 should have come back to the taxpayers, but did not. Why was it that the right hon. Gentleman did not insist upon getting a monthly statement as to the condition of our stores?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
I am going to speak later on; perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to reply. [OPPOSITION cries of "Brodick."]
§ MR. McKENNA
The Prime Minister has not been in the House throughout the debate, but the right hon. Gentleman near him said that he knew the reason, but would not mention the names, because they would be disclosed before the Royal Commission. I maintain that the House of Commons has a prior right to the information. The money of the taxpayers has been voted on the responsibility of the House, and, as the right hon. Gentleman receives his salary out of the taxpayers' money, he is bound to account to those who represent the taxpayers, and inform us why the ordinary precautions were not taken to see that these stores were properly disposed of. I again appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to state who is the guilty party, and not screen himself behind someone else. You have had the money and you must account for it. Let the right hon. Gentleman disclose the name of that somebody else whom he says is really the guilty party, and let that somebody else be charged. Give the person charged an opportunity of being heard, but do not let this important matter be left to the Royal Commission. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to tell us why those monthly statements, which would have prevented the whole of this waste, were not sent in accordance with the plan made by the War Office at the time.
§ MR. BRODRICK
I have already told the House quite clearly the reason why the monthly statements which should have been rendered to the War Office were not rendered, and the responsibility which was attached to those not rendering them. I have also stated that, although I may have a clear view as to who is responsible, I will not, in the 187 peculiar circumstances in which we stand, when the Government and not those persons are being impeached, and when it, has been clearly stated by the Leader of the Opposition that all other persons are to be brought before the Royal Commission, give my impression and my belief in order that every member of the reporters' gallery shall publish to the world to-morrow an incrimination of men whom it is the business of the Royal Commission to deal with. The hon. Member may be persistent, but he will find there is someone more persistent still on this side of the House. What hag been alleged by the right hon. Member for Croydon is not in the least inconsistent with what I have stated to the House. I have told the House what the amount of the actual transactions were and what was the loss as far as I can ascertain it. There is no concealment, but there is on my part an absolute determination not to be made a party in the House, on a debate which in my humble judgment ought never to have taken place, to incriminate persons on my testimony before the opening of the Royal Commission. The Royal Commission will call these persons and they will call me. and before the Commission the whole of the facts will be placed.
§ MR. MCKENNA
If the right hon. Gentleman does not intend to disclose the name of some unknown person who he alleges is responsible he ought to have accepted the responsibility himself. He is the responsible Minister at the head of the Department, and if he accepts the advice of a junior officer he ought not to shield himself behind the name of that junior. The right hon. Gentleman is the guilty man—["Oh, oh !"]—unless he can show that this junior officer acted contrary to his orders and authority. In that case the right hon. Gentleman ought to disclose the name of the junior officer to the House, but if he accepts the action of the junior officer he ought to accept it now in the House and not attempt to shield himself behind it. Either the right hon. Gentleman is concealing from the House information which we ought to have, or he ought never to have charged against an unknown person, as he has done, the responsibility for this offence. The right hon. Gentlaman asks—Is it to go down 188 to the Royal Commission that this person is guilty? Will it not appear from what the right hon. Gentleman has already said that he considers this person is guilty? He has thrown the whole of the responsibility upon this unknown Lieutenant X, and when X is disclosed—and we can all guess who it is—it will be quite understood that the right ton. Gentleman charges him with having been the guilty party. And this is the right hon. Gentleman who was so careful to attack Sir William Butler's Report. If the debate is to be conducted with the concealments that have been apparent on the Ministerial Bench, then it is impossible to get at the truth, so far as fixing responsibility is concerned.
There is still one other point, and that is the responsibility of the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman said the facts were only brought to his knowledge in January, 1905; but last year he was questioned about these very matters. Why, of his own initiative, did he not direct attention to the fact that all these millions were being wasted in South Africa? Out of this whole scandal there is this satisfaction, that though the War Office and two successive Secretaries of State have disregarded their duty, though the papers are lost, yet two years after the event, by the ordinary operations and safeguards for our finance, the Comptroller and Auditor-General is enabled to discover the whole scandal.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
Before I proceed to make a brief reply to the general debate, I wish at the instance of my right hon. friend near me to correct a small error into which he fell in the course of the very remarkable speech which he delivered to the House. He informed the House, quite truly, that he sent out two separate sets of auditors to deal with the immense financial transactions in which the war in South Africa necessarily involved us, and he added that to the second of those, which dealt with supply and contracts, had been added a representative of the office of the Auditor-General. It is quite true that a representative of the Auditor-General did go out to South Africa, 189 but his duty was not to deal financially with the second but with the first of these transactions. It is proper to make that correction, although it is not material to any of the great issues raised in the debate, but I do it at the request of my right hon. friend and in justice to the office of the Auditor-General. Now, having made that brief explanatory statement, may I ask the House whether there could have been a speech delivered which more clearly showed to all who listened to it, and to all, if such there be, who will read it to-morrow, than the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, the extreme inconvenience of the debate in which we are now engaged from the point of view of public procedure and the credit of this House, but not at all, as hon. Gentlemen seems rather rashly to suppose, otherwise than as giving my right hon. friend an opportunity of making a statement which, whatever they may think of it, will, I am convinced, produce a wide and deep impression upon the country?
Let us just consider what the hon. Gentleman said, and take it in connection with the Motion before us. The hon. and learned Gentleman who opened this debate—than whom I do not believe, in spite of his strong political convictions, a juster man, a man with a greater natural love of justice, exists in this House—was scrupulously careful not to touch upon the performances or character of any individual subordinates except in so far as it was absolutely necessary for his purpose. But even he was forced against his will, by the necessities of the situation in which he has been placed by his friends near him, in order to support the thesis that the Government had behaved badly, to make some attacks on the subordinates of the Government, whose character, after all, they cannot come here to defend, which they will have an opportunity of defending before the Commission, but in regard to whom surely it is the grossest injustice and the most cruel hardship that they should find themselves attacked in a debate of this kind—a debate which hon. Gentlemen opposite, at all events, are not likely to deny is animated by the most bitter partisanship—that their personal honour 190 should be called in question because hon. Gentlemen opposite want to turn us out of office. The hon. and learned Gentleman could not wholly avoid these dangers. He was scrupulously anxious, I am sure, to attack nobody but those who could defend themselves in this House; but no such anxious scrupulosity animated the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. Observe the inevitable dilemma in which hon. Gentlemen place us upon this bench. [Ironical cheers] Yes, quite so. Just listen to what the dilemma is. They bring a vote of censure. There is a large body of persons concerned in these transactions, persons of different authorities and different grades, from the Ministerial heads of great Departments dawn to some subaltern in some far-off station in South Africa. They have been in one way or another connected with the great problem of dealing with supplies for a great Army, both during the war and after the war had come to its conclusion. The Opposition bring forward a Resolution in which, out of a great body of men, the Parliamentary heads of the Department, the late Secretary of State for War and the present Secretary of State for War, are alone attacked, and with them, no doubt, their colleagues; but they are primarily attacked; and if the fact be that neither of my right hon. friends was to blame, if the fact be that adequate precautions were taken by the late Secretary of State for War and that the present Secretary of State for War has done his best to get at the root of the scandals, or alleged scandals, with which we are dealing, what possible defence can be made except that the blame which does not attach to them does attach to some of their subordinates? [OPPOSITION cries of "Name."] I think that in some circumstances it might be necessary to name them.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
It is quite possible; but, at all events, are we going to drag these men into our debate on this particular day and in connection with this particular debate when we have 191 just appointed by the general wish of the House a Royal Commission who are to examine, not merely into the conduct of my right hon. friends the present and the late Secretaries of State for War, but to examine into the whole of these transactions and into the conduct of everybody, military and civilian, official and unofficial, connected with them? Is it not an outrageous thing that with this Commission actually appointed the character of these men should be attacked? The hon. Member who has just sat down tried to drag out of my right hon. friend the names of persons who my right hon. friend, rightly or wrongly, thinks have withheld information from him that would have guided him to a knowledge of these transactions. But they have not been content with attempting to drag out the names of unknown persons. They have assailed by name other persons—for instance, Lord Milner has been dragged in. I was sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman dragged in Lord Milner.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
The hon. and learned Gentleman asks, Why not? The reason why he ought not to be dragged in is that, if members of the Government and representatives of a Party may be first tried and then have the evidence against them taken by a Commission—while that is tolerable in the case of Party politicians, it is not tolerable in the case of persons who are not Patty politicians. It is, in my opinion, a monstrous thing that Lord Milner should be held up by more than one speaker this afternoon as having advocated a policy injurious to the British taxpayer, intrinsically unjust, because it suited the African trader and, as I understood the allegation, because it suited those great contractors who have been made the special object of attack this afternoon.
§ MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)
He is a Member of Parliament—a Member of the House of Peers. [OPPOSITION cheers.]
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
Quite so and that is cheered. That is what is called justice on the other side of the House. A great public servant happens 192 also to be a Peer. He is abroad, and cannot be, and has not been, examined, his own story has never been told, and a Commission has been appointed before whom it will be told, and hon. Gentlemen opposite think it right and fair on reflection to defend the course of making an attack on that man before he has had an opportunity of stating his case to the Royal Commission.
§ SIR ROBERT REID
I adverted to the fact that the observation by Lord Milner was stated in the evidence, and I expressly stated that I did not make a charge against him on the ground that he had not had the opportunity of being heard. I do not think it quite fair to accuse me of attacking Lord Milner.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
I apologise. The hon. and learned Gentleman already knows how highly I think of him. I assure him I was not referring to him, but he has a learned brother sitting on the bench behind him who did not preserve the same decorous reticence. The Member for South Shields made a violent attack on Lord Milner.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
I am not attacking the hon Member for Monmouthshire. It comes to this, that when the Leader of the House replies for his Party, and a Gentleman to whom he is referring is not in the House, it is regarded as unfair to advert to him, but it is not unfair to attack Lord Milner.
§ MR. MCKENNA
What the Member for South Shields did was only to read an answer given by Lieutenant-Colonel Morgan to a question. That answer speaks for itself and is already public property. Otherwise he made rot a single suggestion against Lord Milner.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
The hon. Member is very chivalrous in answering for someone else, but he is, unfortunately, in error. One of the statements of the hon. Member for South Shields was that one of the worst parts of the scandal was connected with Lord Milner's refusal to take over the stores. What is true of the attacks 193 on Lord Milner is surety equally true of the attacks on General Lyttelton. What has General Lyttelton to do with the terms of this Motion? The hon. Gentleman can answer for himself now. Why did he attack General Lyttelton?
§ MR. MCKENNA
I never mentioned General Lyttelton. I mentioned nobody's name. [Cries of "Withdraw."]
§ SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE
The right hon. Gentleman says he has some charge to make against me. Will he kindly state what it is?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
I have stated it. The charge is simply that, while the Resolution attacks the Government alone—which I think in many respects is not a proper course, but of which I do not complain—hon. Gentlemen opposite have not confined the attack to members of the Government, who can answer for themselves, but have also attacked other persons who cannot answer for themselves, but who will have an opportunity of answering before the Commission. The hon. Gentleman attacked General Lyttelton a few moments ago.
§ SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE
He would have known that the attack I made was against the Government for the appointment of an officer to supervise the administration in South Africa of these contracts and sales of stores who, upon his own evidence, to which I confined my quotations, proved his incompetence for the position. My charge was against the Government, not against him. [OPPOSITION cheers.]
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and those who cheer him on this felicitous distinction. His attack is on the Government, but it is 194 General Lyttelton who is incompetent. I do not think the hon. Member has gained by his interruption. Then the hon. Member for—I am not sure which, hon. Member it was—
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
I was hero, busily engaged in making the notes for the speech which I have now the satisfaction of making. I think it was the hon. Gentleman opposite who quoted the view of Mr. Flynn upon Colonel Hip well. Why should the hon. Gentleman attack Colonel Hipwell?
MR. A. J. BALFODR
He quoted very deprecatory observations on Colonel Hipwell, and now says he was not attacking him.
§ SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE
With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman I was proving an indictment against the Government for sending out to South Africa to have charge of these stores an incompetent officer. I wish it to be clearly understood that I did not call him incompetent. Your own officer whom you sent out called him incompetent.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
Precisely, the hon. Gentleman quoted Mr. Flynn making derogatory observations on Colonel Hipwell. That is not attacking Colonel Hipwell, but the Government! I do not know whether he would in his own casa accept that distinction. But does not the hon. Gentleman think it would be fair to hear Colonel Hipwell on Mr. Flynn? And that is doubtless what will happen before the Commission; but we cannot deal with it on an occasion like this; and that is only a further illustration of what I have been endeavouring to point out—that this idea of making an attack upon the Government, and on the Government alone, on an occasion of this kind is absolutely impossible. You drag in men whose characters you have no right to drag in, and you cause an infinity of undeserved pain to men who are incapable of defending themselves before this House. On what principle is this done I 195 On the ground that the Government as a Government are responsible for everything their subordinates do. I am not anxious to quarrel with that proposition, but a Government are not blameworthy for everything their subordinates do. They are not to be blamed for everything that happened and every error made by those under them. If so, I do not know what Government would escape that weekly vote of censure to which my hon. and gallant friend behind me referred. And the last persons who would themselves desire to be judged en that principle are the Gentlemen whom I see opposite, and who have had the responsibility of office in previous years.
I desire to point out to the House that there have been the grossest mistakes made, so far as I can discover, with regard to the amount of loss which the public have suffered in this connection. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down c apparently was of opinion that the whole of the pound; 6,000,000 or £7,000,000 of which Lord Kitchener spoke was lost to the country; and he apparently adopted the rather rash estimate of my lion, friend the Member for King's Lynn, who, I think, uttered the extravagant proposition that only £500,000 of all that £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 had ever been realised, directly or indirectly, by the country. Lord Kitchener's estimate was, no doubt, made on a high estimate which was not, and could not be, realised; but, even taking it as you like, we realised for the repatriation fund £2,682,000—that includes blockhouses—for horses and for animals, £2,000,000, for the supplies sold to public contractors—the subject dealt with in this debate—£718,000, for the cost of feeding 140,000 persons six months in concentration camps, say, £1,000,000, and, in addition, the cost of feeding the Army that remained in South Africa for more than six months after the war. If you add all these figures together they come up, and more than come up, to Lord Kitchener's estimate. But I ought to remind the House that, of course, on the other side you have to put in the scores that came to South Africa under contracts after the war ended; and, although I cannot make out a balance-sheet precisely—nor do I imagine it is possible for anybody to make it out precisely at the present moment— 196 there can be no doubt whatever that the amount realised out of the stores came not to the £500,000 upon which hon. Gentlemen have been congratulating themselves in the course of the evening's operations, but to more than £6,000,000 or £7,000,000. I include all the saleable stores belonging to the Government at the end of the war, which is, I suppose, the only fair way of looking at it; and the conclusion I have been forced to come to from such investigation as I have been able to make diverges so widely and so violently from that of the hon. Gentlemen opposite that I thought they would like to know it. I rather gather that they think my figures are excessive, but I think I have better means'of information than they have. And although I may make an error, which, of course, is possible—["Oh !"]—I never profess to be infallible, nor do I profess to have obtained this information for myself—these figures are given on better authority than any figures of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and they are, therefore, more worthy of the consideration of the House and of the country.
Now that I have disposed of the monstrous folly of the calculations upon which hon. Gentlemen have proceeded, I may say that upon one point I agree with the hon. Member for Lynn Regis, though I do not accept his calculations, that it is not wholly or in some respects the principal question what may be the amount of money lost to the country; the most important question undoubtedly is whether the honour of British officers is involved, and whether in their actions there has been anything in the nature of fraud or that which almost amounts to fraud. But although the amount of alleged loss is relatively unimportant as compared with that, it is of vital importance to the question upon which we are engaged, viz., whether the late Secretary for War took adequate precautions in regard to the matter. The precautions may or may not have been adequate, but at all events they have not resulted in great financial loss to the country. That loss has been grossly exaggerated, and. therefore, looked at in that aspect, my right hon. friend may well say they do not show that extraordinary laxity attributed to him.
197 But my right hon. friend can do more than rely on broad considerations; he can show that he has taken precautions that, so far as machinery of the kind can secure anything, he secured that no great scandal should occur in connection with contracts. I will not go over the various steps he took to secure financial supervision; he has detailed them to the House in a lucid and masterly manner, and I can add nothing to what he has said and which, no doubt, will carry due weight on both sides of the House. But is it not fair, when you are judging the action of a Minister responsible for very difficult transactions in difficult times, to compare that action with the conduct of his predecessors in similar circumstances? Does anybody contend that the War Office of 1901, 1902, and 1903 did not, on the whole, compare favourably in the questions of supply, transport, and contracts with—let us take the greatest preceding war, that in Egypt, or the war preceding that, in the Crimea? No one can compare these with the magnitude of the task which my right hon. friend successfully carried through. Consider the difficulties of the South African problem, the mere size of the country over which operations were carried on, which we are all apt to forget, the distance from home, the enormous strength of the Army engaged, incomparably greater than was ever sent from these shores before. [An HON. MEMBER: What was the number of the enemy?] What has the question of keeping up supplies for 300,000 men to do with the number of the enemy? Consider not merely the size of the Army, but the enormous mass of documents involved, in these distant and scattered transactions. All these matters necessarily carried with them special and great difficulties. These were difficulties affecting the period of war, and nobody can forget that 300,000 men were supplied, and never a general uttered a complaint of the way in which his troops were supplied.
But peace has her difficulties as well as war, and we are now concerned with the manner in which my right hon. friend dealt with the problem after peace was declared. Was it an easy problem? Until he knew 198 that peace was signed, it was necessary to make full provision for the supply of that gigantic force as if the war was to go on, and the result was that on the day peace was signed the War Office found itself burdened with contracts entered into in all parts of the world for stores of every kind and description, which had to be dealt with, to be cancelled at a loss or allowed to be carried out at a loss. To a great extent the contracts could not be cancelled; the goods had to be carried to South Africa; and South Africa as a market presented special difficulties, difficulties not the creation of the Government or the creation of anybody in South Africa or Great Britain. It was an enormous country ill supplied i with population, ill supplied with stores, a country in which a commercial "ring" was peculiarly easy to engineer, and peculiarly difficult to deal with if it was engineered. I do not know—we must wait for the inquiry of the Commission to know—if such a ring existed and how far it penetrated. I have heard of rings being formed to deal with forced sales in this country; conceive a forced sale of perishable goods in such a country as South Africa. How was it possible for the Department to deal with the situaation without loss and much difficulty? I am not going into detail, but I regretted to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman who opened this debate try to induce the House to believe that it was an inherently bad transaction that stores of all kinds should be sold at a price lower than that at which a portion of those stores might ultimately have to be bought back, or were ultimately bought back by those responsible for. feeding the troops. There is nothing inherently absurd in that.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
I certainly got that impression from what the hon. and learned Gentleman said, and it is, of course, an easy platform charge that goods were sold at such and such a price and bought at such and such another price, the second price being much higher than the first. Of course that may be a most excellent financial transaction 199 [Laughter.] Very well. I understand the hon. Gentleman to declare that he did not make that charge, but it is constructively made by all the Members behind him. I advise them to think over the problem a little, and they will see that, when you are dealing with these large masses of perishable goods, there can be no question whatever that that plan, which, I believe, was the plan advocated by Lord Kitchener, is not only a right one, but the right one, and, I suspect, the only one. The Army Service Corps cannot turn themselves into retail dealers. If the things have to be sold they must be sold in bulk; if they are sold in bulk, all the difficulties I have described—incidents of all kinds, especially incidents in South Africa—are sure to assail them, and without doubt there would be many transactions of great difficulty and as to which it might be doubtful whether they were right or wrong. Some of the transactions which have been brought to my notice seem to me quite incapable of explanation. But I do not dwell upon that, because it really is not relevant to this vote. Unless it can be shown that my right hon. friend did not send out a sufficient body of expert financial advisers to deal with the situation the attack on the Government is an absurdity. I do not think that when the Commission come to examine into the matter they will find that the questionable, perhaps even the guilty, perhaps even the criminal, transactions are very many; and, what is more important at this moment, more relevant to the division we are going to take, I am confident they will not find that my right hon. friend did not take all the precautions which reasonable foresight could suggest. Of this I am certain, he took more precautions than have ever been taken by any man in his place in the whole previous history of the country.
I confess that I do not think that the attacks made upon my right hon. friend in connection with the South African War show either much justice or much generosity on the part of those who make them. How easy it is to make criticisms upon the details of great transactions when those who make the criticisms have not been concerned in the transactions. The sacred poet compared wisdom to rubies, 200 but he was not thinking of wisdom after the event when he made that comparison. I do not think that anything is more contemptible, I do not think anything shows the House of Commons in a worse light than to survey a great series of transactions like those that took place during the late war and to see only the bad and put aside all the good. I have listened to debate after debate in this House of which my right hon. friend has. been the subject, but never have I heard from hon. Gentlemen opposite one word. of generous recognition for an administrative effort which I believe to be one of the greatest ever made by a Minister of the Crown, which I believe, on the whole, to be one of the most successful ever made by a Minister of the Crown, which enabled us to send an Army into the field far above that which this House ever contemplated in voting the Estimates and to provide for and supply it. Is that a small or contemptible performance? Is that a performance which my right hon. friend's critics think for one moment they could have performed? I do them, an injustice. I believe they all think they could have performed it, but does anybody else think they could have performed it? This attack has been made upon my right hon. friend under circumstances almost deliberately contrived to prevent him making a complete and full Answer. He nevertheless has made an Answer which believe has satisfied the House and will satisfy the country. I can only say that the great desire which I have that this question should be probed to the roots, that everything that is hidden should be brought to light, is based not merely upon a love of justice, not merely on a desire to see pure administration prevail in every branch of the public service, but also on the belief that nothing short of, that complete examination will enable the country at last to do full justice to the great qualities of my right hon. friend.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
I think a good many Members of the House must be rubbing their eyes and wondering whether they have been dreaming all this time, because the right hon. Gentleman has got hold of a perfect, paragon of a War Minister, and what he has done with him is to make him the Minister for India.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
He might be a paragon Prime Minister. I do not know that it is any great compliment to the right hon. Gentleman to imply that all this machinery is to be set up, that a Royal Commission is to be appointed and an Act of Parliament introduced to endow it with sufficient power, in order to show to the world what a man the right hon. Gentleman is. But that was a little by-play on the part of the Prime Minister. He was mainly occupied, it seemed to me, in his lively speech in two things. He wished to minimise the amount of damage in these transactions, and to minimise the amount of the loss inflicted upon the taxpayer in this country. But, unfortunately, we could not follow his figures. He told us that he had made great investigations, he had a paper covered with figures, and he was ready to show how mistaken we had all been. And what he said was that while, we had been glorying in the fact that the losses had amounted to £500,000, they had amounted to a much larger figure—namely, £7,000,000.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman did not follow MR. The allegation was that of £7,000,000 we had only realised £500,000. That allegation was wholly absurd. I have shown that we realised £6,000,000 or £7,000,000.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
Then the right hon. Gentleman says we have realised £6,000,000 or £7,000,000. I hope they are all safe in some corner and that we may get the benefit of them by-and-by. Then the right hon. Gentleman was greatly exercised because attacks had been made upon individuals in this debate. Everyone who was mentioned, everyone who was quoted in relation to certain established facts, is said to have been attacked. There have been one or two casual phrases used, quotations from evidence, and so forth, not very complimentary to individua1s. But there has been no attack upon individuals, and when the right hon. Gentleman the paragon Secretary for India refuses to give the 202 name or names of those to whom he attributes a certain course of conduct, he implies that to mention their names would be necessarily to condemn them. The right hon. Gentleman has no title to shelter himself behind them and not tell the House of Commons who it is that he is sheltered behind. It comes to a pretty pass, and is not likely to enhance the efficiency or the usefulness of this Assembly, if those in power at any time they are likely to be condemned or denounced are themselves to issue a Royal Commission if the Royal Commission is in itself to stop any attacks upon them.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
I never heard of such a plea being put forward before. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India began the debate by a very highly pitched and angry assault upon Sir William Butler. His great object appeared to be to vindicate himself against Sir William Butler's imputations. He conducted a sort of duel with Sir William Butler; but in Sir William Butler's absence, and when I reminded him by way of assuaging his wrath for a moment, that, after all, Sir William Butler's Committee had been appointed by himself, his retort upon me was, "Oh, the right hon. Gentleman thinks it is the business of a Minister to dictate to a Committee. "No, Sir; I never said that, and no one would think that any such opinion would be, expressed by anyone who had any knowledge of the subject whatever. But what I do say is that when a Departmental Committee is appointed, it is the business of the head of that Department, or some one acting on his behalf, to watch the proceedings of the Committee, to consider the evidence taken before it [MINISTERIAL cries of "No !"]—certainly, not with a view to interfering in any way beyond seeing whether it is necessary for the Department to offer witnesses. That is not interfering with or dictating to a Committee at all, but it is not the usual practice, or a becoming course, for a Minister to start a Departmental Committee, to launch it, and to let it take its own course without securing that the interests which he represents are 203 properly placed before the Committee. And, therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman makes a great complaint that this Committee of his own appointment—
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
Or of his right hon. friend's appointment, did not call for him as a witness and did not obtain his explanations, I say it was not the part of the Committee to take that course and that it ought to have been suggested by the Department itself. What seems to me is that the Government do not appear to apprehend the general bearing of the case and the impression on the public mind which has been created by it. That impression goes far beyond those smaller matters with which we have been dealing. The impression is that they lost hold of the business altogether. It was not the loss of the money; it was not the disclosures of incapacity, of failures or faults on the part of officers; it was not the eccentricities or the clevernesses of contractors that weighed upon the public mind, but the fact that the Government allowed these events to occur. And if I speak of the Government allowing them, it was especially strange of this Government, because let me remind the House, what we ought never to forget, that this Government's majority was created on the very ground that they were the only men in this country—so they told us—who could be trusted with the administration of the Army. The election was a military election. They were appointed to wind up the war, to reform the War Office, and to reconstitute the Army, and five years later the state of things which we are dealing with to-day is disclosed. But more than that. There has been a succession of one fugitive Minister after another and-one fugitive scheme after another, the Ministers disagreeing in opinion and the schemes none of them accepted or carried out. While this evanescent process has been going on one salient fact has been established, and that is that the responsibility of the Cabinet, and especially of the Prime Minister, in these matters has been increased to a degree greater than ever existed before and that gives intensity to the astonish 204 ment that, in the face of all these facts this state of things has been found to exist. The War Office has been reorganised—on what principle? On the principle of securing such a responsibility as shall, first of all, produce, efficiency and. also enable us to say at once, where anything goes wrong, on whom the blame is to rest. But that is the very thing we find does not exist under the present system. If your machinery was effective, what occasion could arise for such a Committee as the Butler Committee? The country, therefore, was not only shocked by loss, but still more by the standard of responsibility exhibited by the Government.
I will not refer to the strange desire the Government appear to have shown, whether they felt it or not, to evade or postpone inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman gets up and declares to the House that he hardly lives for any other purpose than to have this matter probed to the bottom, but we found him day after day opposing to the very end the proposition to make the inquiry effective.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
None may have been appointed so I quickly, but even this might have been appointed more quickly still [MINISTERIAL cries of "No!"] if the right hon. Gentleman had proposed on the first day what he was literally driven to accept on the last day. Even then, when an hon. Member here spoke of a Statutory Commission, the right hon. Gentleman started up and said, "Only on condition, of the Bill being treated as unopposed." That showed how little importance he attached to the whole matter, for has actually thinks the spending of an hour or two in the House of Commons in discussing some point of the Bill, is a matter that might very well put the whole thing; into abeyance.
The War Office should better have appreciated the fact of this enormous agglomeration of stores in South Africa. The right hon. Gentleman has given, I believe, not an over-drawn picture 205 of that quantity of stores, and he was right; but that was the very reason why the Department should have taken especial pains in this matter—precautions that would not be required in any ordinary emergency. In time of war you take the readiest means, whatever they may be. When three years ago we brought forward our Motion for a Committee of inquiry into contracts in South Africa, which has been referred to several times to-night, at that time it was possible mistakes were made, and great scandals even might have been allowed; but all of that was governed by the fact that in war you must take the weapons and instruments that come to your hand. You cannot allow any impediment, you may have to break financial rules. But when the war was over the urgency ceased; and for this process which ended in the system of sales and purchases there were six full months allowed. In my opinion the War Office should have insisted on full information being sent home, not only of the general scheme which was proposed, but of the details of the scheme, so that everything might be considered here at home, where there was the fullest information and the largest experience with regard to contracts in all parts of the world. When the right hon. Gentleman reminded us as he did that there were quantities of stores arriving in South Africa under contract for some time after the war had ended, let me point out that at home there were officials possessing he requisite knowledge to divert a large portion of those stores to other stations in other quarters, where they might be wanted for the public service. No attempt appears to have been made to do so.
Then, in the second place, there was the failure to realise that this was a matter that must be watched closely as time went on. Then I come to the point which the right hon. Gentleman has dealt with so unsatisfactorily, the question of what was the reason why these monthly returns suddenly ceased, returns which would have prevented the evil arriving at the scale at which it did arrive. The Prime Minister blames the obsolete system of the War Office, and he says they have provided against that, and mat under their new system any such 206 thing will be impossible. But is that so? The machinery was switched off for this purpose, but the effective grip you must keep over these things is not the mere grip of audit, which comes after the play, it is the grip of immediate guidance and control at the time. Decentralisation in this instance has been carried surely to the pitch of folly. There is no central department under your new system at the War Office capable of dealing on a large scale with great undertakings and emergencies such as that. The Department of Director-General of Contracts has been abolished altogether, and the financial advisers are scattered under various authorities. I am no advocate of over-centralisation, from which we have suffered in the past But I do think, when we find the central authority denuded of these powers, that we can only expect that on future occasions the South African experience will be repeated—that evils which have occurred in this instance in South Africa may recur, under this system, all over the British Empire. Such a system exposes us to the maximum of corruption and plunder and the minimum of safety is secured. But decentralisation does not relieve the Minister of his responsibility. He is responsible, however much he sends his officials to check and control matters away from headquarters. It is the absolute duty of those at the centre to provide such checks and control as will be a safeguard against abuse and waste.
But we are told that this is a Party Motion. The Prime Minister talks of it as a piece of bitter partisanship. There is no trace of partisanship about it. There never has been a great period in the history of this country when there has been less inconsiderate partisanship than in connection with the South African War. If you mean merely that the Motion will be decided by a Party vote agree. It will be a Party vote. We are accustomed to the practice. What a senseless thing, then, to meet the charges which we bring against the Government, invariably by the crack of the Party whip. We are taunted with bringing forward weekly votes of censure. There will be votes of censure, I hope, so long as the Government commit mistakes and so long as they appear to prevent the light of day 207 falling either upon their own transactions or those of their subordinates. The only direct Party move in the matter which I have noticed was taken by the Prime Minister himself. Twice last week he brought in the came of Mr. Gladstone, and with the old, stupid argument of tuquoque referred to the fact, which had nothing to do with this question, of bad swords in the Egyptian War. I think Mr. Gladstone is a man who ought to be spoken of with respect by the Prime Minister, for Mr. Gladstone is a man the latchets of whose shoes, in these matters of finance and thrifty administration, he is not worthy to loose, a man who called into. existence by the Exchequer and Audit Act the machinery by which the control of Parliament over expenditure is maintained, and who devoted his life to exalting instead of debasing the power of this House. But if you will take a Party view of this matter, then let us put aside this obsolete and used-up House of Commons. Let as go to the country. While wear? here, powerless in the lobbies as we are [MINISTERIAL cheers]—by the help of gentlemen who now cheer and who have, no doubt, been brought up from pleasant occupations to take part in the division—while we are here, I say, we shall maintain the high constitutional function of Parliament to discuss matters and try to preserve, if possible, the credit and interest of the nation.
§ MR. HAVILAND BURKE (King's County, Tullamore)
A few years ago we were told that there was what was called a corrupt oligarchy in power in the Transvaal. Now the British Empire has heaped £250,000,000 on the public debt, it has shed blood like water, and it has deposed the corrupt oligarchy. It has replaced that oligarchy by the splendid, hue, free, and enlightened power of Lord Milner's rule at Pretoria. What is the result? It is now admitted that the wretched British taxpayer who approved of the war, and the still more wretched Irish taxpayer who opposed the war all along the line, has been swindled out of anything from £5,000,000 to £7,000,000. That is a triumph of British civilisation. To my mind the identity of the swindlers is really a very small matter. The real thing that this House has to deal with is the responsibility of Ministers of 208 the Crown for the last three years, for by trying to prevent Members of this House from getting the information to which they are entitled, they have facilitated the operations of the swindlers in every possible way in their power. I remember one occasion on which a store scandal was under discussion and an influential Member of the Opposition put a Question to the then Secretary of State for War, the present Secretary of State for India. The Question was whether one of the partners in one of the incriminated firms was or was not a man who was a fugitive from justice in South Africa, a man who had been on his trial for illicit diamond dealing, who had come to London, who had left his bail to be estreated, and who had had his personal description published in the London police "Hue and Cry." The answer of the then Secretary of State for War was, "I have no information." I marvelled at the time that hon. Members on this side of the House could bow so quietly to the insolence displayed by the Answer to such a circumstantial Question. There are many forms of bad government, but I have no hesitation in saying that the worst of all bad governments is an oligarchy masquerading in the clothes of the Constitution, and that is what we are fast coming to in this House. We might as well save ourselves and everybody else a deal of trouble by passing a Resolution, when we thank His Majesty for his gracious Speech, appointing the members of the Government a permanent Executive until our meeting on the next occasion. What we have to complain of is that Ministers in this House have a system of refusing to answer Questions put on the Notice Paper. When Questions are put in relation to details of matters of fact they put every obstacle in the way of our getting information.
There is another matter to which I would draw the attention of the House. You have got at this moment as a bid for cheap popularity an Aliens Bill. It is a Bill intended for the exclusion of poor aliens from this country. Now the slime of the alien is over the whole of these South African War transactions. Are there no English or Irish contractors? The closer you look into it, you will find that German Jews are involved 209 in the South African War scandals everywhere. Irish and English contractors have to take a back seat. I think we want a Bill for the exclusion of alien contractors from British Army war contracts.
I regret that no note of protest has been raised in the course of the discussion on another question. A Member of Parliament cannot open his mouth in criticism of anything done by a military officer without being accused of attacking the Army. There are a certain number of Members on the opposite side of the House who have it in their mind to remove from this House any civilian criticism or control over the Army for which this House pays. All I would say is that this House has an absolute right of criticism in these matters. When incompetence is pleaded, and when I am told that this or that officer was not dishonest, but that he was only deceived or imposed upon, I reply that incompetency paves the way for the thief. It is incompetence that leaves the road open to corruption. Why is it that a householder who carelessly leaves his door open at night is liable to be summoned by the police for his neglect? It is because by his negligence he is the burglar's best friend, and because in addition to that he places temptation in the way of a man who never was a thief before. On the same principle a man who holds a great official position, and who by lack of supervision or by neglect of duty opens the way for corruption and the swindling of the taxpayers of the country, however much he may be acquitted of personal dishonesty, is a man who ought to be dismissed from the position he holds. On these grounds I shall vote for the Resolution of censure which has been moved. If these scandals had occurred under the late corrupt Boer oligarchy, in the United bates, or in Prance, we should have had endless reams of newspaper sermonettes on the subject. I think this matter shows that this House is losing control over public administration and expenditure, and that if the House does not look after itself, and stand upon its rights, the day will be near at hand when constitutional Government will be farce and the money of the taxpayer 210 will be at the mercy of any alien jobber to squander with impunity.
§ MR. GUEST (Plymouth)
I do not conceive the object of this debate to be to affix any particular blame on any individual whose name has been mentioned in connection with the scandals revealed, or partially revealed, by the investigations of the Butler Committee. I do not think it is the duty of, or, indeed, that it is advisable for, this House to attempt any such-task. Indeed, the object of the vote of censure is not to attempt to censure those officers who have been animadverted on by the Butler Report, but to attach, as far as this House can attach, responsibility—and there is responsibility—upon the present Government. It seems to me that the paragraph which most intimately concerns the debate which is now proceeding is that which deals with the complete carelessness on the part of the War Office with regard to the instructions which they issued to the Army Sales Department in South Africa. We want to know how far the War Office has assisted, or is responsible, for the state of affairs with which we are confronted. We know that Lord Kitchener, previous to leaving South Africa, telegraphed to the War Office that the accumulated stores involved a sum of between £6,000,000 and £7,000,000. We want to know how it was that that considerable matter escaped the attention of the Secretary of State for War. One would have thought that, great as is the responsibility and extensive as are the duties of that official, a sum of £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 would have received the attention to which it was entitled. But in spite of the knowledge of the War Office, in spite of the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India, in spite of the fact that the War Office had ordered a monthly return, which was not made, the War Office on 24th April, 1903, cancelled the return and took no further steps whatever. What the officers in the Army feel, and what the public feel, is that they have been put into a position where they had no right to be put, owing to the carelessness, not of some individual swindler, but owing to the carelessness and malfeasance of the War Office 211 and the Secretary of State for War. We wish to attach responsibility to the Government for the things for which they are responsible, and to the War Office, which has passed through so many hands in so few years, with greater and increasing incapacity as it passed from one hand to another. We believe that there is fundamental weakness and wrong in the whole of the War Office administration. The hon. Member continued his speech amid interruptions and cries of "Divide" to which he replied—Go to the country and see how it is divided.
§ MR. CHURCHILL
It is obviously impossible that the debate should terminate to-night. Not merely have an immense number of new facts been brought before the House, but a remarkable speech has been made by the late Secretary of State for War, who stated that while he was in charge of the
§ War Office information of vital importance to the public, which certainly should lave been placed at his disposal, was withheld from him by some person or persons unknown, and concealed from he House of Commons, although the lames are perfectly well known on the Treasury Bench. I say, therefore, that these circumstances it is quite impossible that we should be asked to come to a decisive vote, and to terminate this debate to-night. I would ask permission to move the adjournment, if the debate.
§ Question put, "That the Question be low put."
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 329; Noes, 256. (Division List No. 209.)217
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Brassey, Albert||Davenport, William Bromley|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham|
|Aird, Sir John||Brotherton, Edward Allen||Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tower Hamlets|
|Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden||Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)||Dickinson, Robert Edmond|
|Allsopp, Hon. George||Brymer, William Ernest||Dickson, Charles Scott|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Bull, William James||Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Burdett-Coutts, W.||Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph|
|Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.||Butcher, John George||Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon|
|Arrol, Sir William||Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ.||Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Carlile, William Walter||Doughty, Sir George|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.||Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Douglas, Rt. Hon A. Akers-|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy||Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire||Doxford, Sir William Theodore|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Duke, Henry Edward|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart.|
|Baird, John George Alexander||Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Egerton, Hn. A. de Tatton|
|Balcarres, Lord||Chamberlain Rt Hn. J. A. (Worc.||Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W)|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Chamberlayne, T. (Southamp'n||Faber, George Denison (York)|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r||Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Fardell, Sir T. George|
|Balfour, Capt, C. B. (Horrsey)||Chapman, Edward||Fellowes, Rt. Hn. Ailwyn Edw.|
|Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W (Leeds||Clare, Octavius Leigh||Fergusson, Rt. Hn Sir J. (Manc'r|
|Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.||Clive, Captain Percy A.||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Coates, Edward Feetham||Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv' rn' ssB' ghs|
|Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)||Coddington, Sir William||Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas|
|Bartley, Sir George C. T.||Coghill, Douglas Harry||Fisher, William Hayes|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Fison, Frederick William|
|Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks||Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C. R.||Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Flannery, Sir Fortes|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Compton, Lord Alwyne||Flower, Sir Ernest|
|Bigwood, James||Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas||Forster, Henry William|
|Bill, Charles||Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Foster, Philip S. (Warwick S. W.|
|Bingham, Lord||Cripps, Charles Alfred||Galloway, William Johnson|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)||Gardner, Ernest|
|Bond, Edward||Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)||Garfit, William|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith||Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile||Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.|
|Boulnois, Edmund||Cubitt, Hon. Henry||Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick|
|Bousfield, William Robert||Cust, Henry John C.||Gordon, Hn J. E. (Elgin & Nairn|
|Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F (Middlesex||Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)|
|Gordon, Maj. Evans (T'rH' mlets||Lowe, Francis William||Round, Rt. Hon. James|
|Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||Lucas Col. Francis (Lowestoft)||Rutherford, John (Lancasnire)|
|Goschen, Hon. George Joachim||Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||Lyttelton, Rt. Hoi. Alfred||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford|
|Graham, Henry Robert||Macdona, John dimming||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|Gray Ernest (West Ham)||MacIver, David (Liverpool)||Samuel, Sir Harry S. (Limehouse|
|Green, Walford D (Wednesbury||Maconochie, A. W.||Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos Myles|
|Greene, Sir E W (B'ry SEdm'nds||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)||M'Calmont, Colonel James||Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.|
|Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)||M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Grenfell, William Henry||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)||Seton-Karr, Sir Henry|
|Gretton, John||Majendie, James A. H.||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Greville, Hon. Ronald||Malcolm, Ian||Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew)|
|Groves, James Grimble||Manners, Lord Cecil||Sinclair, Louis (Romford|
|Guthrie, Walter Murray||Marks, Harry Hananel||Skewes-Cox. Thomas|
|Hain, Edward||Martin, Richard Biddulph||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Hall, Edward Marshall||Massey-Main waring, Hn. W. F.||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)|
|Halsey, Rt, Hon Thomas F||Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E. (Wigt'n||Smith, H. C. (North'mb Tynesid|
|Hambro, Charles Eric||Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire||Smith, Rt Hn J. Parker (Lanarks|
|Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x||Melville, Beresford Valentine||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry||Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.||Spear, John Ward|
|Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford||Middlemore, John Throgmort'n||Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)|
|Hare, Thomas Leigh||Mildmay Francis Bingham||Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk|
|Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)||Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.||Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset)|
|Haslam, Sir Alfred S.||Milvain, Thomas||Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)|
|Hay, Hon. Claude George||Mitchell, William (Burnley)||Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart|
|Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)||Moles worth, Sir Lewis||Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.|
|Heath, Sir James (Staffords N W||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)||Stock, James Henry|
|Heaton, John Henniker||Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Helder, Augustus||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Stroyan, John|
|Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.||Morgan, David J (Walthamstow||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Hickman, Sir Alfred||Morpeth, Viscount||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Hoare, Sir Samuel||Morrell, George Herbert||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxfd Univ|
|Hogg, Lindsay||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside||Mount, William Arthur||Tollemache Henry James|
|Hornby, Sir William Henry||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. W.|
|Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry||Muntz, Sir Philip A.||Tritton Charles Ernest|
|Houston, Robert Paterson||Murray, Charles J. (Ccventry)||Tuff, Charles|
|Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)||Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward|
|Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil||Myers, William Henry||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Hudson, George Bickersteth||Nicholson. William Graham||Turnour, Viscount|
|Hunt, Roland||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens||Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H (Sheffield|
|Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)||Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)||Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)|
|Jameson, Major J. Eustace||Parker, Sir Gilbert||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington||Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.|
|Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.||Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley||Wanklyn, James Leslie|
|Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton||Pemberton, John S. G.||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H)||Percy, Earl||Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton|
|Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh.||Pierpoint, Robert||Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.)|
|Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.||Platt-Higgins, Frederick||Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon|
|Kerr, John||Plummer, Sir Walter R.||Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne|
|Keswick, William||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Kimber, Sir Henry||Pretyman, Ernest George||Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)|
|King, Sir Henry Seymour||Pryce-Jones Lt.-Col. Edward||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Knowles, Sir Lees||Purvis, Robert||Wilson, A. Stanley (York E. R.)|
|Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Pym. C. Guy||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Laurie, Lieut.-General||Randles, John S.||Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks.)|
|Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Rankin, Sir James||Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)|
|Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th||Rasch. Sir Frederick Carne||Wolft, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)||Ratcliff, R. F.||Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson|
|Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End)||Reid, James (Greenock||Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart|
|Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. NR||Remnant, James Farquharson||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareh'm||Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine||Wylie, Alexander|
|Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)||Renwick, George||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Ridley, S. Forde||Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. K.|
|Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|Llewellyn, Evan Henry||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)||Younger, William|
|Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)|
|Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham||Rollit Sir Albert Kaye||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.|
|Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Bristol, S)||Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert|
|Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter.|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N, E.||Field, William||Mitchell, Edw (Fermanagh, N.)|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, N E||Mooney, John J.|
|Allen, Charles P.||Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)|
|Ambrose, Robert||Flavin, Michael Joseph||Morley, Charles (Breconshire)|
|Asher, Alexander||Flynn, James Christopher||Morley, Rt. Hn John (Montrose|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||Moss, Samuel|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Moulton, John Fletcher|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.||Muldoon, John|
|Barlow, John Emmott||Fuller, J. M. F.||Murnaghan, George|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Furness, Sir Christopher||Murphy, John|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Goddard, Daniel Ford||Nannetti, Joseph P.|
|Bell, Richard||Grant, Corrie||Newnes, Sir George|
|Benn, John Williams||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)||Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)|
|Black, Alexander William||Griffith, Ellis J.||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)|
|Blake, Edward||Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||Norton, Capt. Cecil William|
|Boland, John||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Nussey, Thomas Willans|
|Brand, Hon. Arthur G.||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid|
|Brigg, John||Hammond John||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Bright, Allan Heywood||Harcourt, Lewis||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)|
|Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)||Hardie, J. Keir (Methyr Tydvil)||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W)|
|Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson||Harms worth, R. Leicester||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Harrington, Timothy||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Harwood, George||O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)|
|Burke, E. Haviland||Hayden, John Patrick||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)|
|Burns, John||Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.||O'Dowd, John|
|Burt, Thomas||Helme, Norval Watson||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)|
|Buxton, N E. (York, NR, Whitby||Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.||O'Kelly, Jam s (Roscommon, N|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles (Poplar||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||O'Malley, William|
|Caldwell, James||Higham, John Sharp||O'Mara, James|
|Cameron, Robert||Holland, Sir William Henry||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||O'Shee, James John|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.||Parrott, William|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)||Partington, Oswald|
|Cawley, Frederick||Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||Paulton, James Mellon|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Jacoby, James Alfred||Pearson, Sir Weetman D.|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Joicey, Sir James||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)|
|Churchill, Winston Spencer||Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea||Perks, Robert William|
|Cogan, Denis J.||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Philipps, John Wynford|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)||Jordan, Jeremiah||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Crean, Eugene||Joyce, Michael||Price, Robert John|
|Cremer, William Randal||Kearley, Hudson E.||Priestley, Arthur|
|Crombie, John William||Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George||Rea, Russell|
|Crooks, William||Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath, N.)||Reckitt. Harold James|
|Cullinan, J.||Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W||Reddy, M.|
|Dalziel, James Henry||Kilbride, Denis||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Kitson, Sir James||Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries|
|Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)||Labouchere, Henry||Richards, Thomas|
|Delany, William||Lambert, George||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galw'y||Lamont, Norman||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)||Langley, Batty||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)|
|Dewar, John, A. (Inverness-sh.||Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.||Robson, William Snowdon|
|Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)||Roche, John|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Dobbie, Joseph||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington||Rose, Charles Day|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Leigh, Sir Joseph||Runciman, Walter|
|Doogan, P. C.||Leng, Sir John||Russell, T. W.|
|Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)||Levy, Maurice||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)|
|Duffy, William J.||Lewis, John Herbert||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Duncan, J. Hastings.||Lloyd-George, David||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Edwards, Frank.||Lough, Thomas||Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)|
|Ellice, Capt. EC (S Andrw's Bghs||Lundon, W.||Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)|
|Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight)|
|Emmott, Alfred||Mac Neill. John Gordon Swift||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidstone||Mac Veagh, Jeremiah||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)|
|Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)||M'Crae, George||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Eve, Harry Trelawney||M'Kean, John||Sheehy, David|
|Farrell. James Patrick||M'Kenna, R'ginald||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Fenwick, Charles||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||Sinclair, John (For farehire)|
|Ferguson, R, C. Munro (Leith)||M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin||Slack, John Bamford|
|Ffrench, Peter||Mansfield, Horace Rendall||Smith, Samuel (Flint)|
|Soames, Arthur Wellesley||Toulmin, George||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Soares, Ernest J.||Trevelyan, Charles Philips||Wills, Arthur Walters (N. Dorset|
|Spencer, Rt. Hn. CR. (Northants||Ure, Alexander||Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.|
|Stanhope, Hon. Philip James||Villiers, Ernest Amherst||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Stevenson, Francis S.||Waldron, Laurence Ambrose||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Strachey, Sir Edward||Wallace, Robert||Wilson, John (Falkirk)|
|Sullivan, Donal||Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)|
|Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)||Wood, James|
|Tennant, Harold John||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.||Woodhouse, Sir JT (Huddersf'd|
|Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E)||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)||Young, Samuel|
|Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)||Weir, James Galloway|
|Thomas, JA (Glamorgan, Gower||White, George (Norfolk)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. William M'Arthur.|
|Thoms n, F. W. (York, W. R.)||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Tillett, Louis John||Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)|
|Tomkinson, James||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
§ Question put accordingly.218
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 255; Noes, 329. (Division List, No. 210.)223
|Abraham, William (Cork, NE.||Delany, William||Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galway||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)|
|Allen, Charles P.||Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)||Higham, John Sharp|
|Ambrose, Robert||Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.||Holland, Sir William Henry|
|Asher, Alexander||Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Dobbie, Joseph||Hutton Alfred E. (Morley)|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Donelan, Captain A.||Isaacs, Rufus Daniel|
|Barlow, John Emmott||Doogan, P. C.||Jacoby, James Alfred|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)||Joicey, Sir James|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Duffy, William J.||Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea|
|Bell, Richard||Duncan, J. Hastings||Jones, Leif (Appleby)|
|Benn, John Williams||Edwards, Frank||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire|
|Black, Alexander William||Ellice, Capt. E (SAndrew' sB' ghs)||Jordan, Jeremia|
|Blake, Edward||Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)||Joyce, Michael|
|Boland, John||Emmott, Alfred||Kearley, Hudson E.|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Evans Sir Francis H. (Maidstone||Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Brand, Hon. Arthur G.||Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)||Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath, N)|
|Brigg, John||Eve, Harry Trelawney||Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W|
|Bright, Allan Heywood||Farrell, James Patrick||Kilbride, Denis|
|Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)||Fenwick, Charles||Kitson, Sir James|
|Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson||Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)||Labouchere, Henry|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Ffrench, Peter||Lambert, George|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Field, William||Lamont, Norman|
|Burke, E. Haviland||Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, NE||Langley, Batty|
|Burns, John||Fitzmaurice, Lord (Edmond||Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W|
|Burt, Thomas||Flavin, Michael Joseph||Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)|
|Buxton, N. E. (York, NR, Whitby||Flynn, James Christopher||Layland-Barratt Francis|
|Buxton, Sydney Chas. (Poplar)||Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||Lease, Sir J. F. (Accrington)|
|Caldwell, James||Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Leigh, Sir Joseph|
|Cameron, Robert||Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.||Leng, Sir John|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Fuller, J. M. F.||Levy, Maurice|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Furness, Sir Christopher||Lewis, John Herbert|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Goddard, Daniel Ford||Lloyd-George, David|
|Cawley, Frederick||Grant, Corrie||Lough, Thomas|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick||Lundon, W.|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Griffith, Ellis J.||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.|
|Churchill, Winston Spencer||Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||Mac Neill, John Gordon Swift|
|Cogan, Denis J.||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Mac Veagh, Jeremiah|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||M'Crae, George|
|Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)||Hammond, John||MKean, John|
|Crean, Eugene||Harcourt, Lewis||M'Kenna, Reginald|
|Cremer, William Randal||Hardie, J Keir (Merthyr Tydvil||M'Killop, W. (Sligo North)|
|Crombie, John William||Harmsworth, R. Leicester||M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin|
|Crooks, William||Harrington, Timothy||Mansfield, Horace Rendall|
|Cullinan, J.||Harwood, George||Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N|
|Dalziel, James Henry||Hayden, John Patrick||Mooney, John J.|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen|
|Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)||Helme, Norval Watson||Morley, Charles (Breconshire)|
|Morley, Rt. Hon. John (Montrose||Rea, Russell||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan E.|
|Moss, Samuel||Reckitt Harold James||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr|
|Moulton, John Fletcher||Reddy, M.||Thomas J. A. Glamorgan, Gower|
|Muldoon, John||Redmond, John E. (Waterford||Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.|
|Murnaghan, George||Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries||Tillett, Louis John|
|Murphy, John||Richards, Thomas||Tomkinson, James|
|Nannetti, Joseph P.||Rickett, J. Compton||Toulmin, George|
|Newnes, Sir George||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Nolan. Col. John P. (Galway N.||Roberts, John' H. (Denbighs.)||Ure, Alexander|
|Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Robson, William Snowdon||Villiers, Ernest Amherst|
|Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Roche, John||Waldron, Lawrence Ambrose|
|Nussey, Thomas Willans||Roe, Sir Thomas||Wallace, Robert|
|O'Brien, Kendal Tipperary Mid||Rose, Charles Day||Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.|
|O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Runciman, Walter||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)||Russell, T. W.||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan|
|O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney|
|O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Schwann, Charles E.||Weir, James Galloway|
|O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)||Scott, Chas, Prestwich (Leigh)||White, George (Norfolk)|
|O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)||Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|O'Dowd, John||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)||Whiteley, George (York, W R.)|
|O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|O'Malley, William||Sheehy, David||Wills, Arthur Walters (N Dorset|
|O'Mara, James||Shipman, Dr. John G.||Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull, W.|
|O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.|
|O'Shee, James John||Slack, John Bamford||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.|
|Parrott, William||Smith, Samuel (Flint)||Wilson, John (Falkirk)|
|Partington, Oswald||Soames, Arthur Wellesley||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.|
|Paulton, James Mellor||Soares, Ernest J.||Wood, James|
|Pearson, Sir Weetman D.||Spencer, Rt Hon. CR (Northants||Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersfi'd|
|Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden||Stanhope, Hon. Philip James||Young, Samuel|
|Perks, Robert William||Stevenson, Francis S.||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Philipps, John Wynford||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Pirie, Duncan V.||Sullivan, Donal||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. William M'Arthur.|
|Power, Patrick Joseph||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe|
|Price, Robert John||Tennant, Harold John|
|Priestley, Arthur||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Bignold, Sir Arthur||Clare, Octavius Leigh|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Bigwood James||Clive, Captain Percy N.|
|Aird, Sir John||Bill, Charles||Coates, Edward Feetham|
|Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden||Bingham, Lord||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.|
|Allsopp, Hon. George||Blundell, Colonel Henry||Coddington, Sir William|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Bond, Edward||Coghill, Douglas Harry|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Boscawen, Arthur Griffith||Cohen, Benjamin Louis|
|Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn Hugh O.||Boulnois, Edmund||Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse|
|Arrol, Sir William||Bousfield, William Robert||Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C. R.|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F (Middlesex||Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.||Brassey, Albert||Compton, Lord Alwyne|
|Bigot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy||Brodrick, Bt. Hon. St. John||Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Brotherton, Edward Allen||Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh)||Cripps, Charles Alfred|
|Baird, John George Alexander||Brymer, William Ernest||Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)|
|Balcarres, Lord||Bull, William James||Cross, Herb, Shepherd (Bolton|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Burdett-Coutts, W.||Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r||Butcher, John George||Cubitt, Hon. Henry|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ.||Cust, Henry John C.|
|Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds||Carlile, William Walter||Dalrymple, Sir Charles|
|Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.||Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Davenport, W. Bromley|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire||Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham|
|Banner, John S. (Harmood-||Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Dewar, Sir T. R. Tower Hamlets|
|Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Dickinson, Robert Edmond|
|Bartley, Sir George C. T.||Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Dickson, Charles Scott|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. Worc.||Dimsdale, Rt Hon. Sir Joseph C.|
|Beach, Rt Hn Sir Michael Hicks||Chamberlayne T. (S'thampton||Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Dixon-Hartland. Sir Fred Dixon|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Chapman, Edward||Dorington, Rt Hon. Sir John E.|
|Doughty, Sir George||Hunt, Rowland||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.)||Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)|
|Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Jameson, Major J. Eustace||Parker, Sir Gilbert|
|Duke, Henry Edward||Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington|
|Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart||Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred||Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley|
|Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton||Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton||Pemberton, John S. G.|
|Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.||Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H||Percy, Earl|
|Faber, George Denison (York)||Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)||Pierpoint, Robert|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W.||Platt-Higgins, Frederick|
|Fellowes, Rt Hn Ailwyn Edward||Kerr, John||Plummer, Sir Walter R.|
|Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r||Keswick, William||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Kimber, Sir Henry||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||King, Sir Henry Seymour||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward|
|Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ssB'ghs)||Knowles, Sir Lees||Purvis, Robert|
|Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Pym, C. Guy|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Laurie, Lieut.-General||Randles, John S.|
|Fison, Frederick William||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Rankin Sir James|
|Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose||Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th)||Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne|
|Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon||Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)||Ratcliff, R. F.|
|Flannery, Sir Fortescue||Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End)||Reid, James (Greenock)|
|Flower, Sir Ernest||Lawson, John Grant (Yorks N. R||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Forster, Henry William||Lee, Arthur, H. (Hants. Fareham||Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine|
|Foster, Philip S. (Warwick. S. W.||Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)||Renwick, George|
|Galloway, William Johnson||Legge, Col. Ho-. Heneage||Ridley, S. Forde|
|Gardner, Ernest||Leveson-Gower, Frederick N S.||Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas Thomson|
|Garfit, William||Llewellyn, Evan Henry||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)|
|Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.||Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)|
|Godson Sir Augustus Frederick||Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham||Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye|
|Gordon, Hn J. E. (Elgin & Nairn||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S)||Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert|
|Gordon, J. (Londonderry, South||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter|
|Gordon, Maj Evans (T' rH' mlets||Lowe, Francis William||Round, Rt. Hon. James|
|Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby||Loyd, Archie Kirknian||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)||Rutherford, John (Lancashire|
|Goschen, Hon. George Joachim||Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||Lyttleton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford|
|Graham, Henry Robert||Macdona, John Cumming||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||MaeIver, David (Liverpool)||Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)|
|Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury||Maconochie, A. W.||Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos Myles|
|Greene, Sir E W (B'ry S Edm'nds||M Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)||M'Calmont, Colonel James||Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.|
|Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.||M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Grenfell, William Henry||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)||Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)|
|Gretton, John||Majendie, James A. H.||Seton-Karr, Sir Henry|
|Greville, Hon. Ronald||Malcolm, Ian||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Groves, James Grimble||Manners, Lord Cecil||Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew)|
|Guthrie, Walter Murray||Marks, Harry Hananel||Sinclair, Louis (Romford)|
|Hain, Edward||Martin, Richard Biddulph||Skewes-Cox, Thomas|
|Hall, Eaward Marshall||Massey-Main warhg, Hn. W. F.||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.||Maxwell, Rt Hn. Sir H. E (Wigt'n||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)|
|Hambro, Charles Eric||Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfiiesshire||Smith, H. C. North'mb (Tyneside|
|Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x||Melville, Beresford Valentine||Smith, Rt Hn J. Parker (Lanarks|
|Hamilton, Marq. of (L'donderry||Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Hardy, Lawrence (Kent, Ashford||Middlemore, John Throgmorton||Spear, John Ward|
|Hare, Thomas Leigh||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)|
|Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th||Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.||Stanley, Hon. Arthur Ormskirk|
|Haslam, Sir Alfred S.||Milvain, Thomas||Stanley Edward Jas. (Somerset)|
|Hay, Hon. Claude George||Mitchell, William (Burnley)||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)|
|Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)||Molesworth, Sir Lewis||Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart|
|Heath, Sir James (Staffords N W.||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)||Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.|
|Heaton, John Henniker||Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)||Stock, James Henry|
|Helder, Augustus||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.||Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow||Stroyan, John|
|Hickman, Sir Alfred||Morpeth, Viscount||Stru'tt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Hoare, Sir Samuel||Morrell, George Herbert||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Hogg, Lindsay||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.|
|Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside||Mount, William Arthur||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Hornby, Sir William Henry||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.||Tollemache, Henry James|
|Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry||Muntz, Sir Philip A.||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Houston, Robert Paterson||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Howard, John Kent (Faversham||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)||Tuff, Charles|
|Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil||Myers, William Henry||Tufnell, Lieut. Col. Edward|
|Hudson, George Bickersteth||Nicholson, William Graham||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Turnour, V'scount||Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H (Sheffield)||Whitmore, Charles Algernon||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)||Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)||Wylie, Alexander|
|Walker, Col. William Hall||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord||Wyndham, Kt. Hon. George|
|Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir William H||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)||Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.|
|Wanklyn, James Leslie||Wilson, John (Glasgow)||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|Warde, Colonel C. E.||Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks|
|Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton||Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander-Hood and Viscount Valentia.|
|Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon||Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson|
Question, "That this House do now idjourn," put, and agreed to.