Commons Sitting of 2 March 1905

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (NO STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE).
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, viz.:—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.

  HECKMONDWIKE IMPROVEMENT BILL
  "To confer upon the Urban District Council of Heckmondwike further powers with regard to the supply of water and electricity, and the improvement, health, local government, and finance of the district; and for other purposes," presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  WIGAN CORPORATION BILL.
  "To consolidate and amend the provisions relating to the tramway undertaking of the mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of the borough of Wigan; and to confer further powers upon them in relation to that undertaking; to empower them to erect a town hall and public baths; to make provision for the establishment of a cattle mart; and for other purposes," presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.

  POLICE AND SANITARY COMMITTEE.
  Ordered, That the Committee of Selection do nominate a Committee, not exceeding eleven Members, to be called the Police and Sanitary Committee, to whom shall be committed all Private Bills promoted by municipal and other local authorities by which it is proposed to create powers relating to Police or Sanitary Regulations in conflict with, deviation from, or excess of the provisions of the general law.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders 150 and 173A apply to all such Bills.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That four be the quorum of the Committee.
  Ordered, That if the Committee shall report to the Committee of Selection that any clauses of any Bill referred to them (other than clauses containing police and sanitary regulations) are such as, having regard to the terms of reference, it is not in their opinion necessary or advisable for them to deal with, the Committee of Selection shall thereupon refer the Bill to a Select Committee who shall consider those clauses and so much of the Preamble of the Bill as relates thereto, and shall determine the expenditure (if any) to be authorised in respect of the parts of the Bill referred to them. That the Committee shall deal with the remaining clauses of such Bill, and so much of the Preamble as relates thereto, and shall determine the period and mode of repayment of any money authorised by the Select Committee to be borrowed, and shall report the whole Bill to the House, stating in their Report what parts of the Bill have been considered by each Committee.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power, if they so determine, to sit as two Committees, and in that event to apportion the Bills referred to the Committee between the two Committees, each of which shall have the full powers of, and be subject to the instructions which apply to, the undivided Committee, and that three be the quorum of each of the two Committees.—(Mr. Cochrane.)

  RATHMINES AND RATHGAR EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  Petition for additional provision; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

  SELECTION (PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899) (COMMISSIONERS).
  Mr. WODEHOUSEreported from the Committee of Selection; That, in pursuance of the provisions of The Private
  164
  Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, they had discharged Mr. Charles Hobhouse, and had selected Mr. Black, to act as Commissioner.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council of the 27th February, 1905, declaring that Certificates for Sea-going Passenger Steamers granted in Mauritius shall be of the same force as if granted in the United Kingdom, and that Part III. of the Act shall apply with modifications to such Certificates [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX).
  Copy presented, of Order made by the County Council of the County of Middlesex, dividing the Parish of Acton, in the Baling Parliamentary Division, into two Polling Districts [by Act]; to lie upon, the Table.
  BARBADOS.
  Copy presented, of Special Rules for Juvenile Adult Prisoners [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  BANKRUPTCY COURTS (IRELAND).
  Annual Returns presented, of the Official Assignees of the Court of Bankruptcy in Ireland and the Local Courts, Belfast and Cork, for the year 1904 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No, 3326 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Suggested Coastguard Station at Sanday, Orkney.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: To ask the Lord-Advocate if the Secretary for Scotland will cause;

  165
  inquiry to be made as to the number of wrecks and lives lost during this last winter round the North Isles, Orkney, and the desirability of establishing a coastguard station at Sanday, equipped with a rocket life-saving apparatus.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I have inquired into this question, and find that two vessels stranded on the island of Sanday this winter, and about sixteen lives were lost. It is doubtful whether a rocket apparatus would have been of any service in these cases, but I will make further inquiries, and inform the hon. Member of the result.

  Inquiry into Depression of Fishing Industry in Sutherland and Caithness.
  MR. HARMSWORTH: To ask the Lord-Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, if he can state when the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Depression of the Fishing Industry in Sutherland and Caithness will be issued.
  (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) I am not able to give the exact date when the Report in question will be issued, but the Secretary for Scotland has been in communication with the chairman, and there will be no avoidable delay.

  Delivery of London Night Mails in the North, of Scotland.
  MR. HARMSWORTH: To ask the Postmaster-General if he is now in a position to state whether any new arrangements have been made with the West Coast Railways with the object of ensuring that the down night mails from London to the North of Scotland will be delivered at schedule times.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I am glad to say that, as the result of measures taken both by the railway companies and by the Post Office, a considerable improvement has been effected in the working of the night mail service from London to the North of Scotland. There have, during the past few months, been very few cases of material delay not attributable to some unavoidable cause such as
  166
  unfavourable weather or an accident on the railway.

  Relatives of Supervising Officers in Post Office.
  MR. GODDARD: To ask the Postmaster-General whether the rule providing that relatives of supervising officers should not be appointed at the same offices applies to all postal and telegraph offices; whether he will state the reasons for the exemption of any towns from the enforcement of the rule; and whether he will state what steps are taken to prevent nepotism at these places.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) At smaller post offices the rule generally is that male relatives of supervising officers are to be admitted only on condition of transfer to other offices at the age of nineteen, and female relatives on condition only of transfer if the relationship should at any time be considered detrimental to the efficiency of the service. At larger offices at which open competition is in force the condition on appointment for males and females alike is liability to transfer if the relationship should at any time be considered detrimental. I do not consider that there is any reason for modifying these rules.

  Interruption of the Telegraph. Service with Shetland.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: To ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that Shetland was deprived of telegraphic communication with the outside world for a period of three weeks, suffering inconvenience thereby, and if the persons responsible for the delay in repairing the cable will be called to account; and whether an offer was made to the Post Office to repair the cable in twenty-four hours; and, if so, why such offer was not accepted.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I am aware that telegraphic communication with Shetland has been interrupted, but there has been no avoidable delay in restoring it. When the break occurred the telegraph ship "Monarch" was on

  167
  her way to the Thames; after refitting she took in cable and sailed for the North on February 18th. Attempts to establish communication in the meantime by special electrical means through the broken cable had failed. The "Monarch" has encountered very stormy weather, and has therefore been unable to do any work. No offer to repair the cable has reached me. I am sorry for the inconvenience which has arisen; and I have endeavoured to minimise it by providing a special boat service for telegrams.

  Belfast Post Office Staff.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that twenty-five young men, ranging from eighteen years of age to twenty years; are employed to the indoor staffs at the Belfast office at a wage of 6s. per week; does he propose to give these young men any consideration; and, if so, when.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the position of the ten female learners who are attached to the telegraph staff of the Belfast office with a wage of 5s. per week; and whether, in view of the fact that vacancies are not now being filled up owing to a reduction of the female staff having been authorised, he will consider the advisability of increasing the salaries of these learners.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The pay of the male and female learners at Belfast, to which the hon. Member refers in his two Questions, will be considered in connection with the case of the learners generally throughout the United Kingdom with which I am now dealing.

  Members of Parliament and Civil Servants.
  MR. YOXALL: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Treasury Minute issued in 1866, which stated that the Treasury offered no obstacle to the most free action on the part of Members of the Legislature who, on public grounds, may consider it their duty, whether in Parliament or communications to the Treasury, to call attention to the
  168
  grievances of individuals, or desire to enter upon questions affecting the conditions of service of public officers is applicable to-day; whether public servants are liable to punishment from their superior officers in the event of their individual grievances being laid before the heads of their Departments by Members of Parliament; and whether he will consider the advisability of reissuing the Minute of 1866.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The Minute, from which the hon. Member quotes, goes on to observe that "there is much inconvenience in and serious objection to the reception of applications coming from any of His Majesty's Civil Servants on matters affecting their personal interests or position, except through the head of the Department to which they belong;" calls attention to the "very stringent rules which have long prevailed in the Revenue Departments against the solicitation of promotion by influential persons unconnected with the service," and states that "the same objections apply in principle to applications for increases of salary on reclassification of offices, and the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury desire that it may be understood that henceforth, as a general rule, no application in relation to increased pay or allowances (or for promotion where such rests with the Treasury) will be entertained by them unless transmitted through the head of the Department to which the applicant belongs." In a second Minute, dated 2nd May of the following year, the Treasury recurred to the subject, remarking that "my Lords have observed with much regret a growing practice on the part of gentlemen employed in the public service to endeavour to influence this Board to accede to their applications for increase of salary or additional retiring allowance by means of the private solicitations of Members of Parliament and other persons of political influence." The Minute concludes by stating that "any attempt made by him to obtain the sanction of this Board to his application by any such solicitation as is hereinbefore referred to, will be treated by them as an admission on the part of such officer

  169
  that his case is not good upon its merits, and such application will be dealt with by their Lordships accordingly." Both these Minutes are still in force, but I see no reason for re-issuing them. The answer to the second Question would depend upon the particular circumstances of the case.

  Old Age Pensions—Mr. Cottew's Scheme.
  MR. JOSEPH HOWARD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the scheme of old age pensions submitted to the Government in 1895 by the originator, Mr. W. S. Cottew, involving no expense to the country, has been brought to his notice; and whether he can now take it into consideration.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) I have had the scheme referred to by my hon. friend under my notice, but I am not impressed by its feasibility.

  Navy—Age Retirement Rules.
  MR. KEARLEY: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether there is any intention to reduce the age of compulsory retirement for commissioned or warrant officers of any branches of the service.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The Admiralty is not aware of any such intention.

  Identification of Law-breaking Motorists.
  MR. CAWLEY: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been directed to the remarks of the Lord Chief Justice, in trying the case Rex v. Noble at Reading on February 4th, that there should be some better means of identifying law-breaking motorists; and, if so, will he say whether he proposes to introduce legislation with that object.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I have seen no report of the observations of the Lord Chief Justice in the case referred to beyond a short newspaper paragraph. I am not aware of any better method of identifying law-breaking motorists than that at present in force.

  Hours of Railway Servants.
  MR. BELL: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has observed in the Return of hours worked by certain classes of railway men, recently issued, the number of instances of long hours of duty; and, if so, will he say what steps has he taken, or proposes to take, with the railway companies with a view to reducing the hours to a reason able limit; and will he ask for a Return for January last upon the same lines.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The recent Return has been carefully examined by the Board of Trade, and I have caused a communication to be addressed to each of the railway companies the hours of whose servants would appear from the Return to have been on some occasion or occasions unreasonably long. I am considering the question of falling for a further similar Return, but am not at present prepared to make a definite statement in the matter.

  Places Available for Successful King's Scholars.
  DR. MACNAMARA: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he can state how many young men and women respectively have qualified for admission to a training college by passing in the first or second class at the recent King's Scholarship examination, the final examination for pupil teachers in the public elementary schools; how many residential and day college places are available for these successful King's scholars, men and women respectively; and how the places available in the residential colleges are distributed in Church of England, Roman Catholic, Wesleyan, and undenominational institutions respectively.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) At the King's Scholarship Examination held in December last, 1,506 men and 4,245 women qualified for admission to a training college. So far as the Board's information goes at present, the number of vacant places available for students desirous of entering a training college in October next will be at least 4,800. It must be remembered that some of these places will be filled by students who have qualified for admission by some

  171
  means other than that of passing the King's Scholarship Examination. The

  Residential Colleges.

  Denomination.

  Men.

  Women.

  Total.

  Church of England

  644

  1,253

  1,897

  Wesleyan

  78

  68

  146

  Roman Catholic

  34

  187

  221

  Undenominational

  105

  433

  538

  Total

  861

  1,941

  2,802

  Indian Budget.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will arrange to bring forward the Budget Statement at an earlier period of the session than on former occasions; and can he see his way to arrange for details of accounts to be quoted in pounds sterling as well as in rupees.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I am not at present able to give information as to the date in the present session on which the usual Resolution concerning the revenue and expenditure of India will be moved. It has been the practice for some years to present to the House statements showing in sterling all the important figures in the Indian Accounts and Estimates. The Secretary of State's Explanatory Memorandum and the Return of Net Income and Expenditure for eleven years are prepared in sterling. In the tables accompanying the Financial Statement, which is prepared in India, the practice is (as the hon. Member will observe on referring to pages 83–99 of last year's Statement) to show some figures in sterling only and some in rupees and sterling. As this Statement and the accompanying tables are primarily prepared to be considered and discussed in the Governor-General's Council in India it would be inconvenient
  details as to the vacant places are roughly as follows:—
  to make any considerable alteration in its form, but I will ask the Government of India whether they can without inconvenience arrange to give, in the body of the Statement, the sterling equivalent of some of the figures which are now quoted there in rupees only.

  Indian Budget—Causes of Increased Expenditure.
  MR. SCHWANN: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state the chief causes of the Indian Government's increased expenditure, during the first eight months of the financial year, under the head of Military Services, of 100 lakhs in excess of the Budget Estimates; have there been any recent savings under that head, or is that excess likely to be increased during the remaining portion of the year ending with next month; to what unforeseen circumstances is attributable the excess in those eight months under the head of Civil Debts; to what amount, beyond the Budget Estimate of £18,435,500 for the Home Charges, have the Secretary of State's drawings, on India reached at the present date, and to what purposes are these excess drawings being applied; and what is the present amount of the Indian Government's cash balances in this country and in India.

  173
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I gather that the hon. Member's Question is based on the account published in the Gazette of India of January 28th, but the excess of 100 lakhs (approximately) shown in this account in the military expenditure in the first eight months of 1904–5 is an excess over the expenditure for the corresponding period of 1903–4, not over the Budget Estimate for 1904–5. A comparison between the estimated and actual military expenditure in 1904–5 will be given, as usual, with explanations in the Financial Statement of the Government of India, which will be made in the course of the present month. I anticipate that the expenditure on Army Services in 1904–5 will exceed the Budget Estimate by more than 100 lakhs, the excess being chiefly due to the greater cost of the Tibet Mission and to outlay which it has been decided to incur in connection with the reorganisation and improvement of the Indian Army. The account to which I have referred shows an increase of 100 lakhs in 1904–5 in permanent debt incurred in India; this increase is over 1903–4, and is explained by the fact that a rupee loan of three crores was issued in 1904–5, whereas the loan of 1903–4 was for only two crores. The drawings on India amounted to £21,150,000 on February 28th. The excess over the amount required to meet the Home Charges (i.e., the payments in this country charged against revenue) is devoted to defraying capital expenditure on railways and irrigation works and to replenishing the balances of the Secretary of State in Council. The balances of the

  Name

  Previous Occupation.

  Age when appointed.

  Date of Appointment.

  Byrne, J. P.

  Constabulary Officer for 20 years

  43 years

  1st May, 1903

  White, J. T.

  Barrister-at-Law

  34 years

  1st May,1903

  Gosselin, B.

  Captain, Royal Artillery

  32 years

  1st May,1903

  Wynne, E. M. P.

  Constabulary Officer for 20 years

  44 years

  1st May,1903

  Johnstone, W. E.

  In Army

  40 years

  16th January, 1904

  Two of these gentlemen are Catholics and three Protestants.

  Government of India on January 31st, 1905, amounted to £8,360,000, and those of the Secretary of State in Council on February 28th to £10,484,000.

  Proceedings of Urban Councils.
  MR. P. J. KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether ho is aware that there is no provision prescribed for summoning a special meeting of an urban council to transact the business of the quarterly meeting when the first fixture of same falls through for want of a quorum; and whether the Local Government Board for Ireland will take steps to apply to the proceedings of urban councils the provisions of Article 12 (3) and Article 16 (4) of The Local Government (Procedure of Councils) Order, 1901.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) The Local Government Board is not aware that inconvenience has been caused by the absence of such provision from the urban district councils' general rules; but, as the question of revising these rules is at present under consideration, the matter will receive attention.

  Recently Appointed Resident Magistrates —Previous Occupation, etc.
  MR. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what are the names, ages, previous occupations, and religion of the last five appointments to the position of resident magistrate in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.)

  Teachers' Pensions.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will consider the advisability of granting full pensions to male teachers upon the completion of thirty-five years service, and thirty years for females, and in case of disablements after ten years service.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The pensions under existing regulations are as high as is consistent with the solvency of the pension fund, and I cannot undertake, as at present advised, to alter them.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Flogging in the Navy.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that in October last a boy named George Lillie, of the cruiser list, was sentenced by a Court-martial, held on board H.M.S. "Victory," to three months imprisonment and to receive twenty-four stripes with the birch for rushing, during the caning of another boy which he was compelled to witness, at the officer who was superintending the punishment and striking him; and whether, having regard to the fact that the presence of all the boys on board ship to witness the birchings and canings of their comrades is calculated to engender feelings of resentment and to lead to acts of insubordination, steps will be taken for the rescission of the provision in the King's Naval Regulations for the presence of all the boys to witness such punishments.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN, Suffolk, Woodbridge): The facts are as stated. There is no intention of making any alteration in the regulations.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: On the first opportunity I will give the hon. Gentleman a rhetorical flogging on this subject.

  The "Enchantress."
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the
  176
  Admiralty what is the total cost of the Admiralty yacht "Enchantress"; has the last instalment of that cost been paid, and has the yacht been taken over; what is the total annual cost of the crew and the keeping up of the Admiralty yacht; how many days has this yacht been used by the Lords of the Admiralty during each of the past three years respectively; and is there any reason why the Lords of the Admiralty should not use a cruiser for their official voyages.
  MR. PRETYMAN: The total cost of the "Enchantress" is £126,393. The last instalment has not been paid. The yacht has been taken over. The total annual cost of the crew and the keeping up, exclusive of coal and sea stores, is approximately £17,600. The cost of these stores would probably not exceed, on an average, £4,000 per annum. The yacht has only been available for use for the past nine months. The objections to the use of a cruiser for this purpose are—(1) the interference with the scheme of fleet organisation and general service; (2) the unsuitability of cruiser accommodation for the purpose.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that cruisers are constantly used for taking Ministers about?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Cape Government Customs Duties— Rebate Claim.
  MR. WHITLEY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if a settlement has been arrived at with the Cape Government in respect of the counterclaim for £170,000 for rebate of Customs duties paid upon articles purchased during the war; how much has been recovered; and how has the amount been dealt with.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,: No settlement has yet been arrived at.
  MR. WHITLEY: Is there any hope of an early settlement?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I must ask for notice of that Question.

  New Guns for the Artillery.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state the number of new guns for which orders have been given, and where these orders have been placed.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: One hundred and ninety-four new 13-pounder guns and 878 new 18-poander guns have been ordered, and the orders have been placed as follows:—Ordnance factories, 352; Armstrong, Whitworth, and Co., 288; Vickers, Maxim, and Co., 288; Cammell and Co., 144—total, 1,072.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: How many of these firms are Birmingham firms?
  MR. ARNOLD-FOKSTER: None.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Oh, what a pity!

  Payment for the New Guns.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state whether the guns ordered by the War Office on March 5th, 1904, are to be paid for on the Army Estimates; and, if not, how is the payment to be made.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The date upon which the orders for the guns were given was May 5th, 1904, when orders were placed with the Ordnance Factories for twenty 13-pounder guns for India. For these guns the Indian Government will pay.

  The New Rifle.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it was in the knowledge of the Army Council that the Small Arms Factory considered the specifications they were ordered to work on in making the new short rifle most unsatisfactory, and that in consequence the rifle would be no improvement on that now in use.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The Answer is in the negative.

  Army Uniform Changes.
  SIR CARNE RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War why the regulation sash has been
  178
  changed in colour and texture; and whether he can explain in the cavalry mess kit in frock coats (new parts), putties, the pattern legging for mounted units, the badges of rank, the great coat, and the cavalry and infantry sword, the object of the constant changes that have taken place more or less recently. The hon. Member explained that the Question had been rather mixed in the printing, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could answer it.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I will try. The numerous details involved in a reply to the hon. Member's Question cannot be conveniently given in the form of an answer in the House, but I shall be happy to supply him with particulars upon any specific points in connection with the changes in uniforms which have taken place. Generally these changes have been made with a view to economy and the increased efficiency of the service.

  British Officers in Japan.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the War Office lately invited applications from officers for two years residence and military study in Japan, with certain emoluments and privileges, he will state how many officers applied from each branch, Engineer, Artillery, Cavalry, and Infantry; whether, seeing that three Infantry and one Artillery officer were selected, he will state who are the persons who made this selection, and on what grounds did they prefer three Infantry officers to all the Engineer officers and all but one of the Artillery officers who applied; whether any further similar appointments are to be made; and, if so, will he direct the selection board to consider the claims of the scientific branches of the service.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The number of officers who applied was as follows:—Engineers 15, Artillery 46, Cavalry 11, Infantry 84, Army Service Corps 9, and Royal Army Medical Corps 1. Of these all who had not passed for promotion were excluded, leaving: Engineers 2, Artillery 15, Cavalry 3, Infantry 29, and Army Service Corps 4. The selection was made finally by the

  179
  Chief of the General Staff. Four selections are made annually. There were already four Artillery and three Engineer officers in Japan as compared with three Infantry and two Cavalry officers; in these circumstances the selection of three Infantry officers and one Artillery officer was considered a proper proportion.
  THE MASTER OF ELIBANK: Are these appointments open to officers of the Indian Army?
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: A certain proportion of officers have been appointed from India, but I am speaking only of those appointed from here.

  Staff College Appointments.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, having regard to the fact that twenty places in the Staff College are open to Army officers in each year, which, as the result of an examination, are awarded as follows, two to the Royal Engineers, four to the Artillery, and fourteen to the Cavalry and Infantry, and seeing that it constantly happens that as the result of the examination a number of Engineer and Artillery officers who are unsuccessful come out higher in the examination than many of the Infantry and Cavalry candidates who are successful, whether he will explain why this system is adopted of selecting for the most important and responsible positions officers who have by examination distinctly proved their inferiority.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The proficiency in mathematics which Artillery I and Engineer officers are obliged to attain before entering the Army gives them a special advantage in that subject, while in the military subjects Cavalry and Infantry officers more than hold their own. In these circumstances it is considered that mathematics should not be allowed to turn the scale against Cavalry and Infantry, and it is held to be fair and in the interests of the service to allot a certain proportion of nominations to each arm of the service. I must also point out that Staff appointments are allotted according to order of merit in passing out of the college, a test in
  180
  which Cavalry and Infantry officers well hold their own with those of the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers.

  Cost of Somaliland Operations.
  MR. WHITLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state the total cost of the Somaliland operations from January 1st, 1900, and inclusive of the Supplementary Vote now presented.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The total cost of the Somaliland operations amounts to £2,494,000.
  MR. WHITLEY: Does that cover the period from the year 1900, or does it only refer to the third attempt to catch the Mad Mullah?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No, Sir.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: May I ask whether the total as shown by the Vote presented to the House to-day is not £3,200,000?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice of that.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: May it not be that no account has been taken of appropriations-in-aid?
  MR. BUCHANAN: Does it include merely the expenditure on Army Votes or on Civil Service Votes as well?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: All.

  Army Hay Contract.
  MR. WHITLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War by whose authority the amount of 30s. a ton was paid to a contractor as compensation for non-delivery of 3,800 tons of hay and 6s. 10½d. a quarter for non-delivery of oats, as reported by the Public Accounts Committee; and has any action been taken in the matter.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: It was not possible at the time to place full details before the Committee. The payments in question were made by the

  181
  authority of the Secretary of State for War. It is not in the power of the War Office to fix the prices which contractors will accept under such circumstances; but the arrangements made were far more favourable than adhesion to the contract, and I think they were reasonable, as the contractors had, in addition to loss on sales, to be reimbursed for expenses which they had incurred for chartering ships sent.

  Ibadan.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has received any remonstrances or complaints from individuals or associations regarding the terms on which 5,000 acres are held of the natives near Ibadan; if he is aware that the natives object to parting with their land; and if he will cause the fullest inquiry to be made before bringing any pressure to bear on the native chiefs to compel them to part with their land.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON, Warwick and Leamington): No such complaint or remonstrance has been addressed to me, and I should not countenance any such pressure as the hon. Member refers to being put upon the native chiefs.

  Transvaal Labour Regulations.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to a proclamation issued in the Transvaal Government Gazette of January 27th, to the effect that every employer of labour on the Rand must give prompt information by telephone or messenger to the Foreign Labour Department in case of any outbreak or disturbance amongst the labourers in his employ, and to the effect that any employer failing to do so shall be liable to a fine not exceeding £50, or, in default, to imprisonment for three months; whether he, has any information respecting the necessity for this proclamation; and, if not, whether he will communicate with Lord Milner on the matter.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I have seen the Government notice containing the regu-
  182
  lation referred to. Lord Milner has not specially reported to me the reasons for issuing the regulation, no doubt because it simply embodies a provision naturally arising out of the administration of the Labour Ordinance.

  Transvaal Labour Statistics.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the total adult white male population in the Rand district according to the last census, and the total number of indentured Chinese coolies now in the same area; and also the total number of Chinese coolies which it is contemplated will be in the Rand by the close of June.
  MR. LYTTELTON: The Census Returns received up to date do not show the white adult male population on the Rand. The total white male population was 73,434. The number of Chinese at the end of January was 27,222. I believe the number now on the Rand is about 33,000. I am informed that at the end of January the total number for which the labour importation agency had received application was 54,862 (including those already introduced).

  Canadian Garrisons.
  MR. REA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will lay upon the Table the correspondence which passed between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the Dominion of Canada with reference to the assumption of the cost and responsibility of garrisoning Halifax and Esquimalt by the Canadian Parliament.
  MR. LYTTELTON: Correspondence on the subject will be laid on the Table of the House as soon as it is complete.

  Natal Church Council.
  *MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, with reference to the Answer which he gave to a Question put by the hon. Member for Westminster, on August 10th,† 1904, what reply His Majesty has since then been advised to
  † See (4) Debates, cxl., 16.

  183
  vouchsafe to the humble petition of the Church Council of the Diocese of Natal; and whether Papers on this subject will be presented to Parliament.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I did not find myself able to advise His Majesty to give any direction with regard to the petition, and the petitioners have been answered accordingly. It is not proposed to present Papers on the subject to Parliament.
  *MR. CHANNING: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider more fully the whole circumstances with a view to secure to the Church of Natal its statutory rights as a branch of the Established Church of the United Kingdom?
  MR. LYTTELTON: No, Sir.
  *MR. CHANNINGgave notice that he would draw attention to the matter on the earliest occasion.

  Telegraphists' Grievances.
  CAPTAIN NOETON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he has received a petition from the Committee of the London branch of the Telegraph Clerks' Association dealing with the claim that all operators should rise to a salary of £190 per annum, by reason of certain papers issued by the Civil Service Commissioners holding out this prospect; and whether, seeing that the Bradford Committee stated that these announcements on the part of the Commissioners were liable to misconception, he can state what compensation he is prepared to give to telegraphists who entered the service as a result of the inducements held out, and which have remained unfulfilled.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,: I have received the petition to which the hon. Member refers, and I have informed the memorialists that I can find no justication for an increase in the maximum pay for telegraphists in the Central Telegraph Office. The hon. Member appears to have overlooked the paragraph in the Report of the Bradford Committee immediately preceding that from which he quotes. In it the Committee state
  184
  that they are convinced that there is no good ground for the allegation of breach of faith, and that they are satisfied that there is the same prospect now of attaining a salary of £190 a year as there was during the period when the announcements in question were made.

  Emigration—Poor Law Guardians' Power to Assist.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, seeing that under the Act 12 and 13 Vic., c. 103, s. 20, guardians were empowered, with the consent of the Local Government Board, to spend one-half the average yearly poor rate raised in the parish in emigrating destitute persons at a cost not exceeding £10 per head, he will say whether these powers have ever been repealed; and, if not, whether he will call the attention of Metropolitan boards of guardians to the Act, and recommend them to work in conjunction with the Central Unemployed Committee in selecting destitute applicants who desire to be emigrated.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,: The section referred to has not been repealed, though the effect of subsequent enactments has been to modify its provisions. A board of guardians may, however, assist in emigrating poor persons belonging to the union, and I am now considering the question of recommending the making of arrangements between the Metropolitan boards of guardians and the Central Committee with a view to aiding emigration in suitable cases.

  Abstractor Clerks.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the memorial from the assistant clerks, known as abstractor clerks, has been considered by the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury; and, if so, whether he is prepared to say if any improvement is to be made in their status and positions.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH,: The memorial to which the hon. Member refers is still under the consideration of the Treasury.
  MR. NANNETTI: And when may an answer be expected?
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I hope very shortly.

  Duty-paid Foreign Spirits.
  MR. KILBRIDE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give a Return showing the quantity of duty-paid brandy, rum, geneva, medicated spirits, and other foreign spirits, removed from one part of the United Kingdom to another, similar to the Table 27 for Home-made Spirits on page 36 of the last published Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: If the hon. Member will put down an unstarred Question I shall be happy to print an Answer showing the total quantities of duty-paid foreign spirits removed from one part of the United Kingdom to another in 1903–4. But it is not possible to distinguish between the different kinds of spirits named in the Question.
  MR. KILBRIDE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state, with reference to Table 27 on page 36 of the last published Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, whether any Government officer ever checks, or is instructed to check, the bulk, quantity, or strength of the duty-paid spirits removed, accompanied by spirit certificates, from the stocks of spirit dealers; whether such certificates are usually filled in by lads employed by spirit dealers; and whether it is the custom of the spirit trade to give, on the face of such certificate, a strength greater by from 10 to 20 per cent. than is actually the case; and, if so, whether this table is taken into account in arriving at Ireland's contribution to the Imperial Revenue in Parliamentary Paper, No. 225.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: The answer to the hon. Member's first Question is in the negative; the Inland Revenue officials check or test only those statements which affect payment or rate of duty. Inaccuracy in the particulars named in this part of the Question would not affect the Revenue, and the certifi-
  186
  cates of traders are therefore accepted without further test. As regards the second point, the Inland Revenue have no information which would tend to confirm the hon. Member's suggestions. The person who gives an inaccurate certificate renders himself liable to a fine of £100 and the forfeiture of the spirits; and, as such action would be a fraud upon the customer, the latter, I think, may be trusted to deal with the matter himself. To the third part of the Question, the answer is that the table is used in the preparation of the Return.

  The Mall Improvements.
  *COLONEL LEGGE: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he can explain why the pillars, now in course of erection on either side of the approaches to the Mall and Birdcage Walk from Buckingham Gate, are being built at an angle to instead of square with the roadways and footways.
  LORD BALCARRES: These pillars are part of an architectural design forming a segment of a circle, as is clearly seen in approaching from Buckingham Palace Road. This accounts for their not standing squarely with the roads.

  Heavy Motor Traffic in Scotland.
  MR CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate if, before bringing into operation in Scotland the Orders by which motor-cars with their loads weighing up to twelve tons are permitted to be driven on public highways in England at a speed of twelve miles an hour, he will take steps to ascertain the opinion thereon of the local authorities.
  THE LORD-ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON,: The hon. Member may not be aware that the Heavy Motor Car (Scotland) Order, 1905, is already in force, having taken effect yesterday. The Secretary for Scotland consulted various authorities before issuing the Order, and gave consideration to their views.

  Illegal Trawling in Scottish Waters.
  CAPTAIN ELLICE: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate whether he will lay upon the Table the Correspondence which took place last year between the Foreign Office and His Majesty's representative at Christiania on the subject of illegal trawling in Scottish waters by trawlers registered in Norway?
  MR SCOTT DICKSON: Before giving a definite Answer to the hon. Member's Question it will be necessary to consult with the Foreign Office on this subject. I shall communicate with the hon. Member on the subject.

  Viceregal Poor Law Reform Commission.
  MR. JAMES O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Viceregal Poor Law Reform Commission appointed in 1903 has completed the taking of evidence; and, if so, when it may be expected to present its Report.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,—for Mr. WYNDHAM): The Commissioners hope to complete their inquiries early next month. It is not possible at present to state, even approximately, when their Report will be issued.

  Pirie-Iveagh Motor Scheme.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the present position of the Pirie-Iveagh motor scheme.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. WYNDHAM): The County Councils of Mayo and Galway, while approving of the experimental services proposed under the scheme in these counties, have not agreed to incur the expenditure necessary for putting the roads into a proper condition for motor traffic. In the County Antrim, the Midland Railway Company has taken up one of the services, and has, I believe, another service under consideration.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Is that all the progress that has been made with this scheme, which was announced two years ago?
  MR. ATKINSON: According to the information in my possession it is.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Only two county councils have approved! What about the other county councils?
  MR. ATKINSON: I have no further information.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Were hopes held out to the promoters of the scheme that public money would be forthcoming for the repair of the roads?
  MR. ATKINSON: I know nothing of that.

  Local Government Orders—Downpatrick Protest.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received the unanimous resolution of the Downpatrick Union protesting against the adoption of the Public Bodies Order, 1904, and The Union Accounts Order, 1904; whether, in view of the protest of all the local authorities in Ireland, he proposes to suspend these Orders; and whether it is intended to give effect to the request of the Downpatrick Union for the issue of a volume containing the Rules and Orders issued prior to and since the passing of The Local Government Act, 1898?
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. WYNDHAM): The resolution has been received. The rural district council and the guardians were invited by the Board to indicate the provisions of the new Orders to which exception was taken and which would lead to the consequences suggested in the resolution, but, so far, they have failed to comply with, the Board's request. My right hon. friend has already stated that the Orders are essential to a proper system of financial administration. With respect to the second part of the Question, I would refer to Parliamentary Papers, No. 360 of 1899; No. 359 and 360 of 1900; and No. 363 of 1904.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no public board in Ireland and nobody else can make head or tail of these Orders? Will he consider the propriety of issuing them

  189
  in a form more easily understood? There are about 600 of them.
  MR. ATKINSONwas understood to reply that they were clear.
  MR. DELANY: Has any public body approved them?
  MR. ATKINSON: Yes, Sir.

  O'Brien Estate, County Longford.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain the cause of delay in the matter of the sale of the O'Brien Estate at Comakelly and Corglass, county Longford; whether he is aware that terms of purchase were agreed on by the tenants and landlord's representatives in Longford in October last, and that when in January last a tenant named Francis M'Cabe tried to have a fair rent fixed by Judge Curran the case was struck out on the ground that the estate had been sold; and can he state when this matter is likely to be closed.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. WYNDHAM): It has not been found possible to obtain the information necessary to enable me to give a reply to this Question to-day and I must ask the hon. Member to postpone it until Monday next.

  Irish Dispensary Districts—Ardee Inquiry.
  MR. NOLAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that an inquiry has been presently held in Ardee into a proposal on the part of the Local Government Board, Ireland, to convert the three existing dispensary districts of Collon, Drumcondra, and Dunleer into two, at an extra cost to the ratepayers, that the balance of evidence at the inquiry was against the proposal, and that the proposal, if carried into effect, would leave some of the people likely to require advice a distance of fourteen miles from the residence of the medical officer, he can state what is the final decision arrived at by the Local Government Board in regard to the matter.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. WYNDHAM): The inquiry referred to was held in January of last year. In September the Local Government Board made an Order under Seal rearranging the dispensary districts. Application was then made to the King's Bench Division for a Writ of certiorari to quash the Board's Order, and was refused with costs. An appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed on the 2nd ultimo. The Board's Order is now being put into operation, and the Board has also regulated the salaries of the two existing medical officers, allowing to them the amounts formerly paid to three officers. No extra, cost to the ratepayers is entailed.
  MR. NOLAN: In consideration of these matters was regard had to the fact that the medical officer has to travel a distance of fourteen miles?
  MR. ATKINSON: Every fact was considered by the Local Government Board. They did not agree with the accuracy of the representations made.

  Kerry County Council Audit.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that the action of the Local Government Board taken on the report of their auditor, Mr. Browne, in drawing the attention of the Valuation Office to the present position in connection with the Limerick and Kerry Railway, has resulted in a loss of £486 12s. 4d. of the amount payable to the County Council of Kerry out of the Local Taxation (Ireland) Act, he will take any steps to prevent such loss, having regard to the fact that the Under-Secretary, on January 16th last. No. 637, wrote to the council that the apportionment of the proceeds of the purchase of the Limerick and Kerry Railway was duly and legally made.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. WYNDHAM): It is impossible in an Answer to the hon. Gentleman across the floor of the House to explain in an intelligible manner the difficult questions of law involved in this matter, and their bearing upon the facts, but if he will be good enough to put down an unstarred Question for Monday I shall

  191
  be happy to give a reply dealing with, the whole matter.
  MR. FLAVIN: Was it the duty of this boy auditor to give information to the Valuation Office?
  MR. ATKINSON: He did nothing of the kind.

  Constable M'Garry, of Belfast.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state what were the charges preferred against Constable M'Garry, of Musgrave Street Barracks, Belfast; on what date were the charges made against him; on what date was he sent to a lunatic asylum; and what was the date he was told that he had been pensioned off; what was the date of his discharge from the asylum, and what was the nature of M'Garry's discharge from the force.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. WYNDHAM): I am making further inquiry into the facts in this case. Perhaps my hon. friend will postpone the Question until Monday next.

  Wicklow Protests against Local Government Board Orders.
  MR. COGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Wicklow County Council, the Wicklow Urban Council, the Bray Urban Council, and the Rathdrum Rural District Council passed resolutions disapproving of the Public Bodies Order, 1904, and alleging that many of the provisions of the Order are in excess of the powers conferred by statute upon the Local Government Board arid lead to unnecessary complication and expense, and asking to have the Orders withdrawn or suitably modified so as to avoid friction and unnecessary expenditure; and, if so, whether, under these circumstances, he will have the Order withdrawn.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. WYNDHAM): The resolution has been received. The Local Government Board has been advised that all the provisions of the
  192
  Order are intra vires. With regard to the remainder of the Question, I refer to the replies given by my right hon. friend, on the 16th †and 22nd ‡ February, to the similar inquiries addressed to him by the hon. Members for West Wicklow and North Kilkenny. It is not proposed to withdraw the Order.
  MR. COGAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the county councils of Ireland have refused to obey these Orders? What action do the Local Government Board intend to take on the matter?
  MR. ATKINSON: I am not aware of it. The remainder of the Question is hypothetical.

  Lord Crofton's Estate, County Roscommon.
  MR. JAMES O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in connection with the sale of Lord Crofton's estate in the county of Roscommon, a grazing farm of 270 Irish acres is about to be sold to four persons named Cotton, whose tenancies were created by the landlord's agent for the purpose of carrying out a sale to them; and whether, seeing that the sale, if carried out, will deprive the Estates Commissioners of the opportunity of properly dealing with the small tenants and labourers of the district in regard to the enlargement of holdings and otherwise, he will take any steps to prevent a sale to these persons.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. WYNDHAM): Agreements for purchase by tenants on this estate were lodged with the Commissioners so recently as January 5th. The estate has not yet been inspected, and pending the receipt of the inspector's report the Commissioners cannot make any statement in respect to the matters mentioned in the Question.

  Cavan Magistracy
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the number of appointments to
  † See (4) Debates, cxli., 322
  ‡ See (4) Debates, cxli., 885.

  193
  the magisterial bench made in county since Sergeant Long's appointment to that Cavan during the year 1904, and say how many of such appointments were conferred on Catholics.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. WYNDHAM): Six magistrates were appointed for the county Cavan during the year 1904. It is believed they are Protestants.

  Thompson (Clonfin) Estate.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any steps have yet been taken by the Estates Commissioners to acquire the Thompson (Clonfin) Estate, which is at present in the hands of the Scottish Provident Assurance Company, and is an insolvent estate within the meaning of the Land Purchase Act, 1903.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. WYNDHAM): No application in respect of this estate has been lodged with the Estates Commissioners.

  Longford Grazing Farm and Evicted Tenants.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. St. George R. Johnstone, J.P., of Kinlough, county Leitrim, is about offering for sale at Rathclive, county Longford, a grazing farm of ninety-six acres which would be suitable for the providing for evicted tenants of equivalent holdings under the Land Purchase Act, 1903; and, if so, will he direct the attention of the Estates Commissioners to this farm with a view to its purchase and sub-division amongst the evicted tenants of the county Longford.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. WYNDHAM): No application for the sale of this estate has been made to the Estates Commissioners, and I see no necessity for taking any special course with respect to the farm referred to.

  Rasharkin (Antrim) Police Force.
  MR. KILBRIDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how many police constables have been stationed in Rasharkin, county Antrim,
  194
  since Sergeant Long's appointment to that station; how many applied for transfers; and how many of those who applied for transfers were Catholics.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. WYXDHAM): Sergeant Long has been six years at this station. Sixteen constables have been at the station in that period. Of these seven, all of whom were Catholics, applied for transfers to other stations. Three of them wished to be near their native places, one was transferred for the benefit of his health, and two wished to go to better stations.
  MR. KILDBIDE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what particular disease this constable was suffering from that made him wish to be transferred?
  MR. ATKINSON: No.

  River Drainage in Ireland.
  MR. KILBRIDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state on what grounds the Government has come to the conclusion that public money should be applied to the drainage of the River Bann; whether his attention has been directed to the proceedings of the meeting of the Joint Committee, representative of Kildare, Carlow, King's and Queen's Counties, formed for the purpose of considering the question of the Barrow drainage; and, if so, whether the Government are prepared to advance public money for the drainage of the Barrow when advancing money for the drainage of the Bann.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. WYNDHAM): My right hon. friend replied to a similar Question † addressed to him on Monday last by the hon. Member for South Roscommon. To that reply I have nothing to add.

  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants.
  MR. CULLINAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is now in a position to state whether the Estates Commissioners are willing to compensate in cash or by procuring other holdings the
  † See (4) Debates, cxli., 1334.

  195
  occupants of evicted farms who are willing under those conditions to surrender them, with the object of allowing the original tenants back into their old homes.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. WYNDHAM): I beg to refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given by my right hon. friend on August 13th † last to a Question put to him on this subject by the hon. Member for South Kildare. I am not at present in a position to make any further statement in the matter.
  MR. CULLINAN: This a very important question. When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give an Answer?
  MR. ATKINSON: I cannot fix a definite day.
  MR. KILBRIDE: I never got any such reply as suggested from the Chief Secretary.
  MR. ATKINSON: I will inquire into that.

  Bridge Parties at Clonmel Court-House.
  MR. CULLINAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the fact that, at the last meeting of the South Tipperary County Council, held at the county Court-house at Clonmel objection was taken to the Court-house being used by a club for social purposes; and, if so, whether he will take steps to release the county council from paying rent for and maintaining this Court-house, over which they are permitted to exercise no control, and which is being used for purposes which they do not approve of. In putting the Question the hon. Member said that its terms had been so much altered since it was handed in at the Table that the right hon. Gentleman might not be able to answer it. The phrase "social purposes" had been substituted for "a tea and bridge party."
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. WYNDHAM): In the proceedings in Committee on the Local Government Act of 1898 the question of the control of the county Court-
  † See (4) Debates, cxl., 516.
  196
  houses was much discussed and ultimately settled by the provisions in Section 72, Sub section 3, of that Act, to which I beg to refer the hon. Member. It is not proposed to make any change in the law. I believe the High Sheriff of Tipperary has been in the habit of permitting the use, by persons of all creeds and classes, and under proper guarantees and conditions, of a portion of the Court-house for balls, concerts, and other social gatherings of that class for the convenience of the inhabitants of Clonmel and surrounding districts. A dance organised by shop assistants was given in the building on the date of the meeting of the county council referred to in the Question. Whether bridge was played or not I cannot say, but it is open to opinion whether that is a social purpose.
  MR. CULLINAN: It is evident that we have no control over the Court-house. May I ask whether the Government consent to even the High Sheriff of a county giving the Court-house, which the ratepayers are maintaining at their own expense, for the use of a club for tea and bridge parties?
  MR. ATKINSON: I must ask for notice of that Question.

  The De Freyne Estate.
  MR. HAYDEN: May I ask the Attorney-General for Ireland if it is true that the Congested Districts Board has bought the De Freyne Estate, and, if so, upon what terms?
  MR. ATKINSON: I have only just received notice of the Question and have telegraphed for information, which I shall be most happy to communicate to the House when it arrives.

  Swine Fever in Ireland.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the Board of Agriculture, whether, in view of the fact that there wore only 182 outbreaks of swine fever last year in Ireland, as against 1,196 in Great Britain, the Board of Agriculture will consider the advisability of withdrawing the restrictions placed on the movement of Irish swine into Great Britain.
  *MR. AILWYX FELLOWES: In my printed reply to the hon. Gentleman's Question of the 20th ultimo, † I stated that owing to a difference in the meaning attached to the term outbreak in Great Britain and Ireland the numbers returned for the two countries were not comparable. I also briefly alluded to the considerations upon which the Board's recent action was based. Since then there has been no change in the circumstances necessitating a reconsideration of the matter on the part of the Board. I may add that while the total number of swine in Great Britain is 2,861,000, the total number in Ireland is 1,315,000, and that while the average number of outbreaks of swine fever in Great Britain for the first eight weeks in last year was 26·25, the outbreaks for the first eight weeks of this year have averaged 10·87.
  MR. DELANY: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether any outbreaks in Great Britain have been traceable to swine imported from Ireland?
  *MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: I am afraid that is the case.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the Board of Agriculture, whether he can state when the Order was made and became operative in connection with the alleged cases of swine fever in Ireland; whether he can state the number of swine fever cases in existence in Ireland for thirty days prior to the Order coming into force; and also for the thirty days after the Order became operative.
  *MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: The Swine Fever (Movement from Ireland) Order of 1904 became operative on January 23rd, 1905. In the four weeks ending January 21st there were three outbreaks of swine fever returned for Ireland, and during the following four weeks one. I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply of February 20th † to a somewhat, similar Question put by the hon. Member for Queen's
  † See (4) Debaes, exli., 585.
  198
  County. I then pointed out that the definition of the term outbreak differs materially in the two countries, and explained shortly the considerations upon which the Board's recent action was based.
  MR. FLAVIN: Are the same precautions taken to prevent the disease coming from Denmark and other Continental countries?
  *MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: No live cattle from the Continent may be landed here.
  MR. JOYCE: Was the Irish Board consulted by the English Department before the Order was promulgated?
  *MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: Yes, the Board has been in constant communication with the Irish Department.

  Painters' Dispute in Dublin.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the difference of opinion existing between the Board of Works and the operative painters as to the employment of labourers to do painting work at the Viceregal Lodge, Dublin, he will take some expert evidence on the matter; and whether he will say what was the rough work these men were engaged on.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: One labourer only is employed part of his time at the Viceregal Lodge for rough painting work such as fencing, garden and pit frames, barrows, etc. I do not consider that expert evidence is required to decide that such work is of an unskilled description.
  MR. NANNETTI: Eighteen men have been thus employed. I shall raise this question on the Estimates.

  Irish National School Teachers' Pensions.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will explain why the pension benefits of national school teachers have been reduced, seeing that the capital fund has been growing at the rate of £40,000 per annum.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: The administration of the pension fund is regulated, not by a comparison of the receipts and expenditure of the present time, but by the total prospective liabilities as compared with the total prospective assets; and the changes embodied in the Irish Teachers Pension Rules, 1897, were governed by this consideration.

  Phœnix Park Footpaths.
  MR. COGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the use by cyclists of the footpaths in the Phœnix Park has rendered them unsafe and unfit for use by pedestrians; if so, whether, under the circumstances, the Board of Works will provide a suitable footpath for the exclusive use of the public who wish to walk in the park.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: Owing to the absence of a Park Regulations Act the Board of Works have no power to restrict the use of paths by cyclists. I am considering the advisability of introducing such an Act, in the furtherance of which I should value the co-operation of the hon. Member and his friends.

  Joint Stock Companies in Dublin.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will grant a Return of the joint stock and limited liability companies in Dublin, with the valuation of all the property occupied by them, and of the total value of the respective companies, including shares, capital, and debentures.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): Such of the information asked for as can be given will be found in the Return of Joint Stock Companies, 1904, No. 282. This Return will be brought up to April 30th, 1905, during the current year. No information is available with regard to the valuation of the property occupied by the companies referred to, nor with regard to the total amount of the debentures issued.

  The Irish Secretaryship.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of
  200
  Ireland is appointed by Letters Patent signed by the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland as representative of the Crown in Ireland; whether the office of Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland was determined by a change in the personnel of the occupant of the Lord-Lieutenancy till by statutory enactment it was provided that the tenure of the office of the Lord-Lieutenant should not be affected by a change in the holder of the Viceroyalty; and whether it is the duty of the Chief Secretary for Ireland to acquaint the Lord-Lieutenant with reference to matters of Irish policy and administration and to take his advice on such matters, whether the Lord-Lieutenant be or be not a member of the Cabinet.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: The Chief Secretary is appointed by a Minute signed by the Lord-Lieutenant, and he is further appointed by Letters Patent under the Privy Seal. His tenure is not affected by a change of Lord-Lieutenant. There were apparently doubts as to whether he would require re-election after a change of Lord-Lieutenant, but these doubts were set at rest by statute as far back as 1813. As to the last part of the Question, I dissent from the hon. Gentleman's view of the relations between the Lord-Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this description is taken from Lord Spencer's speech in reference to those duties?
  MR. A.J. BALFOUR: I still dissent from that view.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I agree with Lord Spencer.

  Royal Commission on Trade Disputes.
  MR. BELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can give any information whether the Royal Commission on Trade Disputes have completed taking evidence; and when are they likely to issue their Report thereon.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Commissioners have, I understand, finished taking evidence, and are engaged in the consideration of their preliminary Report. At present they are unable to fix a day for its presentation.

  The Government and the Unemployed.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the urgency of providing adequate machinery for dealing with unemployment and the distress arising there from, and to the practical breakdown of the efforts of the London Central and other unemployed relief committees owing to lack of funds, he will give the measure for dealing with unemployment promised in the King's Speech priority over other measures referred to therein.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand there is some exaggeration m the statement with which the hon. Gentleman's Question begins. The work of the Committee has not broken down for lack of funds, though undoubtedly I should like the amount of those funds to be increased. As regards the further Question about the order of legislation, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important that a Bill should pass in the course of the present session, but I do not think it very important at what period of the session it passes. What is desirable is that the machinery should be in operation before the next period of distress is likely to become acute.
  MR. CROOKS: Will any effort be made on the part of the Government to supplement the funds at present in the hands of the Central Committee? Otherwise we shall have the whole of the people starving.
  MR. A.J. BALFOUR: I hope that will not be the case; but, as the hon. Gentleman will readily see, it will not be remedied by the Bill in any event.

  The New High Commissioner for South Africa.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask die First Lord of the Treasury a Question of which I have given private notice—namely, whether, in recommending Lord Selborne to the Crown for appointment as
  202
  High Commissioner in South Africa, he had regard to the circumstances that Lord Selborne had filled the office of Undersecretary for the Colonies from 1895 to 1900, at the period of the Rhode; and Jameson conspiracy, the Jameson raid, and the friction between the Colonial Office and the South African Republic which led to the Boer War, and to the effect calculated to be produced by such an appointment—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! A Question in that form would not be put on the Paper.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am quite willing to answer it.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Well, answer.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I am not at all objecting to the hon. Gentleman's right to ask a Question in proper form on the subject of the appointment of Lord Selborne; but the hon. Member was putting his Question in rhetorical language that would not be permitted on the Paper. I think he had better frame his Question in more suitable language.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what will be the business next week?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope to get the Speaker out of the Chair on the Navy Estimates on Monday. I shall go on with Supply on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. Either Navy Estimates or Supplementary Estimates will be taken. The Estimates will be in the Vote Office this evening.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that last year the House were hustled in dealing with the Navy Estimates. This year questions of exceptional importance arose, and he hoped arrangements would be made to give the House at least a week for the consideration of those Estimates before they were taken.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURthought the hon. Gentleman would see that the request was somewhat unreasonable. He agreed that very broad questions of principle were raised by the Navy Estimates this year; but the principles had long been before the House and the country with official authority, and on those broad principles he thought the House were already fully armed with the information they desired to obtain.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman be content with getting the Speaker out of the Chair on the Navy Estimates without taking the Vote.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to consider that suggestion. I certainly do not negative it.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman does not propose to move the Speaker out of the Chair on the Civil Service or Army Estimates next week.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONasked whether it was intended that the Secretary to the Admiralty should make his introductory statement with the Speaker in the Chair or wait for Committee to be opened.
  MR. LOUGHdesired to know whether hon. Members who were successful in the ballot would be allowed to bring in their Motions before the statement on behalf of the Government was made. That, he believed, was the old and better practice of the House.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: And in case the statement is made with Mr. Speaker in the Chair will the right hon. Gentleman see that the hon. Member making it does not monopolise the greater part of the time available?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he believed it would be much more to the convenience of the House to follow the recent practice than to go back to the old practice. The House and the country ought to be
  204
  greatly interested in the new naval policy which his hon. friend would propound to the House. It would be most undesirable that all the edge of the interest should be taken off by a series of miscellaneous discussions upon details. He thought it would be better to begin the Navy Estimates with a broad statement of the policy of the Government.
  MR. BUCHANANhoped the right hon. Gentleman would bear in mind what took place five or six years ago when Mr. Goschen made the statement. After the principle had been approved the debate was adjourned in order that details might be considered.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: As a point of order, is it not for you, Mr. Speaker, to decide who shall be heard first. Formerly private Members had the first hearing, but of late years the practice has grown up for the Minister to make his statement first.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The old practice was that when the Navy Estimates were called on for the first time the Minister formally moved, and the Speaker thereupon called upon the Member who was first in the ballot. Then the practice grew up which I have no control over, that the Minister should make a long statement before moving that I should leave the Chair. That statement he formerly used to make in Committee. Then it appeared to me to be more fair and convenient that in such a case some hon. Member representing the Opposition on Navy matters should have an opportunity of making some general observations on the statement before the first name in the ballot was called. That I understand to be the recent practice. If it is thought undesirable that a Member should be called upon to make general observations in reply before the ballot comes on, that is a matter the House can settle itself.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Would it not be competent, Sir, for any Member to move that a certain Member be now heard—the Member, for instance, in charge of a Motion?
  *MR. SPEAKER: No, I think it would not. That is a form used in the House

  205
  of Lords when two Members both claim to speak, because, the Speaker there has no authority to decide such a question, but the practice here is different.
  MR. LOUGH: Have we no remedy then?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

NEW BILLS.
  VACCINATION BILL.
  "To amend the Law in respect to the procedure of officers and justices of the peace administering the several Vaccination Acts," presented by Mr. Philip Stanhope; supported by Mr. Broadhurst, Mr. Channing, Mr. Levy, and Sir Charles McLaren; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 77.]
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1894) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894," presented by Mr. Cathcart Wason; supported by Sir William Arrol, Mr. Weir, Sir Andrew Agnew, Mr. Eugene Wason, Mr. Alexander Cross, Mr. Harmsworth, Colonel Denny, Mr. Ainsworth, Mr. James Reid, Mr. John Dewar, and Sir John Batty Tuke; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 78.]
  LIGHT RAILWAYS BILL.
  "To continue and amend The Light Railways Act, 1896," presented by Mr. Gerald Balfour; supported by Mr. Bonar Law; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 79.]
  MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL.
  "To amend the Merchant Shipping Acts, 1894 to 1900," presented by Mr. Gerald Balfour; supported by Mr. Bonar Law; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 80.]

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

  ARMY (SUPPLEMENTARY) ESTIMATE, 1904–5 (SOMALILAND).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £550,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, for Additional Expenditure in respect of the following Army Services, viz.:—

  £

  Vote 1. Pay, etc., of the Army-

  985,000

  Vote 2. Medical Establishments, Pay, etc.-

  21,000

  Vote 6. Transport and Remounts-

  265,000

  Vote 7. Provisions, Forage, and other Supplies-

  260,000

  Vote 12, Miscellaneous Effective Services-

  2,000

  Vote 14. Retired Pay, Half-Pay, and other non-effective charges for Officers, etc-

  1,000

  Vote 15 Pensions and other non-effective charges for Warrant Officers. Non-Commissioned officers, Men, and others

  2,000

  1,536,000

  Less Surpluses on other Votes-

  386,000

  1,150,000

  Deduct Excess Appropriations-in-Aid

  600,000

  £550,000"

  MR GIBSON BOWLESasked whether this was a supplementary or additional sum.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It is both.
  *THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORT,who was indistinctly heard, said he thought

  207
  it would perhaps be less inaccurate to call this an additional Estimate. The House would remember that the Supplementary Estimate of last year provided for the expenditure in Somaliland down to the end of that year. The ordinary Estimates for this year made no provision for Somaliland, but the House was informed that additional Estimates would be taken, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that he had taken £500,000 in his Budget for that purpose. The Estimate now before the House provided for the cost of the operations from April 1st, 1904, down to their close and also for the maintenance of the temporary garrison which was kept in the country down to the date of its return to India. If the temporary garrison had been withdrawn, as was anticipated, by November 30th, the sum of £500,000 taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year would have sufficed, but as the troops did not leave till December 29th, this Estimate arose for their maintenance until their return to India. It would be right if he informed the House of what had been the cost of the Somaliland operations since they were taken over by the War Office. The figures were as follows:—1902–3, £252,000; 1903–4, £1,618,000; 1904–5 (the present Estimate), £550,000—Total, £2,420,000.
  MR. KEARLEY: And what expenditure did the Foreign Office incur before that?
  *MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: The sum to be added in respect of that is £37,640, giving a total cost which might be roughly described as £2,500,000.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is not this sum raised to £3,200,000 by appropriations-in-aid?
  *MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTreplied in the negative. The sum he had stated covered the total amount expended in warlike operations. He was not in a position to give the details as to the way in which the money had been expended. The war was conducted by the Government of India for this country, and Indian troops were employed and maintained on the Indian
  208
  scale. All the Government of India had done was to send the general figures representing the total amount they had expended on the operations. We purchased from the Indian Government stores, clothing, and ammunition to the value of £100,000; but of that £30,000 went back to India, and could not, of course, be included in the cost of the war. Possibly he had erred in giving so many details on the Estimate, but he believed that the supply of full information in this manner was calculated to shorten debate. The Estimate was not merely an additional Estimate in respect of Somaliland, but also a Supplementary Estimate in respect of certain sums of money required to meet deficits on certain of the Votes. He could assure the Committee that for many reasons this expenditure was entirely unavoidable, and that every possible economy had been effected during the past year. It was only by the most careful and constant watching that they had put themselves in the position to ask the House for so small a sum in respect of these operations. He agreed that the interception of appropriations-in-aid had grown to proportions which the House of Commons had hitherto never contemplated, but when they reverted to conditions of peace he hoped they would revert also to the old conditions, when appropriations-in-aid were not nearly so large as at present. There had been during the first year of administration of his right hon. friend the Member for West Belfast at the War Office a saving of between £9,000,000 and £10,000,000.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is this in order on this Vote? If so I shall be quite ready to answer the hon. Gentleman on this point.
  *MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid he would not attempt to argue whether it was proper that there should be appropriations-in-aid, but he would like to point out that the past few years had not been normal years, and these appropriations were only intercepted with the assent of the House in Committee of Supply.
  There were two main causes for the deficits. The first was the excess

  209
  strength of the Army. Certain changes had been anticipated, involving large reductions, which had not taken place at the beginning of the year. One was the reduction of garrison regiments and another the reduction of the South African garrison. The garrison in South Africa was not reduced in numbers at the beginning of the year as had been expected, nor had the garrison regiments been reduced. They estimated for the return of three cavalry regiments at the beginning of the year, but they did not return until August, and that had affected the Votes. South Africa was, perhaps, the most expensive station in the world, and the cost of maintaining troops there was enormously greater than elsewhere, the price of everything consumed by the troops being especially great. The price of forage was enormously greater. The situation during the current year had been such that, from a military point of view, it was deemed extremely imprudent to part with the horses and transport animals of all kinds in South Africa which would be required in the event of war. [Hon. MEMBERS on the OPPOSITION Benches: War, where?] With respect to the excess strength of the Army, a larger number of men had to be maintained during the year than had been estimated for. In regard to Vote I. and all other Army Votes, it could not be too often repeated that the cost of the Army was built up on the cost of each individual man. It was necessary to take into account not only the pay of every man but the cost of his arms, ammunition, food, housing, clothing, ambulance, hospital, and all the other necessary requisites of equipment. But it might be asked, why they did not reduce the Army? Why did they not get rid of the men they did not require? They had tried to, but could not. They had done their best to get rid of the three-years men who were not required. Inducements had been offered to them to go into the Reserve where they were wanted, but without avail. The Reserve had been depleted by the war in South Africa, but the three-years men would not go into it. Neither would they extend their term of enlistment so as to become qualified for service in India. The qualification for India was that the man must
  210
  have had four years service, be an efficient soldier, and twenty years of age; and no three-years man could in any circumstances be qualified for service in India. Provision, however, had been made for the Indian drafts. Few people realised the dangers in which we were placed in respect to the Indian service, He supposed people imagined that it was all right because they had plenty of recruits. The difficulty was not to get men into the Army, but when there, to induce them to extend their service so as to make them available for India. Accordingly, his right hon. friend took the step of stopping all recruiting of three-years men, and refused to accept any except for nine years. That step had been brilliantly successful, and the situation, so far as India was concerned, had been saved. But they had not saved money. He was certain, however, that the money had been well spent in enlisting these nine-years men, and that they would repay by their services that money over and over again.
  MR. McKENNAsaid that the Financial Secretary to the War Office had stated that everything was being done to improve the general staff. He contended that the state of the War Office was worse than over, and he moved the reduction of Vote 1, Item A by £100.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That Item, Vote 1, Sub-Head A (Pay, etc., of General Staff) be reduced by £100."—(Mr. McKenna.)
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid he wanted to know whether this Item A included the extra money paid towards the expenses of the Intelligence Department. Particularly, was it to be utilised in sending out Intelligence Officers to the seat of war in Manchuria to study the progress of the campaign there? He did not suppose there ever had been a war showing such fruitful lessons. The South African War taught us a great deal, and he hoped we had laid those lessons to heart, but the war now going on between Russia and Japan was still more fruitful in lessons which were of interest to the British Army and people. He wanted to know

  211
  whether Generals Ian Hamilton and Nicholson and their subordinate officers were learning something of the new developments of artillery in Manchuria, as to what form of artillery ammunition was found most effective in that climate, and as to the employment of big guns. [OPPOSITION cries of "Order, order!"]
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid he did not think the hon. and gallant Member would be entitled to go into every conceivable question of military investigation. He was quite entitled to ask questions as to what officers were on the Vote and if they performed their duties; but he could not discuss what subjects these officers were likely to report on.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid that much had been heard about the merits of the long and the short rifle, and he wanted to know if in the reports they were, likely to get light which would lead to the understanding of that subject. He himself was very much interested in the medical and hospital work in the armies in the Far East, which he understood to be very effective; and he wanted to know whether any report would be received on that subject. Then there was the question as to whether the bayonet was an effective weapon. [Cries of "Order."] There had been actual experience of bayonet combats in this war. [Renewed cries of "Order."]
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEon a point of order, held that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was not entitled to discuss such details under this Vote.
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid he did not think the hon. and gallant Member was entitled to go into all these details. The question which arose on Item A was as to whether the Government were right in sending out a certain number of officers, to make inquiries and report, whether they sent too few or too many, or sent them to the right places and so forth; and not what they were going to do when they got there.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid he would like to know how many were sent out, where these officers were
  212
  or are, and whether they had been able to do satisfactorily the work which they had been sent to do. There was another point; had the Intelligence Department been extended sufficiently for the purposes likely to be set before it? It had been held by the other side that the Intelligence Department had not been so extended. Were these officers likely to got good information for the edification of the British Army?
  SIR. J. FERGUSSONsaid he wished the Committee to observe that although they were discussing a most serious subject affecting the efficiency of the Army, which they all professed a desire to promote, the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment had given no reason for the reduction. That was very surprising. He should have thought that the question of the general staff should not be treated in that contemptuous manner, but should have the hearty approval of the House of Commons. Every Army reformer had for years been pointing out the great need there was for such a body of skilled officers. Under the administration of the Secretary of State for War they now had, for the first time, a general staff on the footing of other armies. He apprehended that the Army Council was also included in the Vote. No more effective change than that highly trained officers should, through the Secretary of State, direct the affairs of the Army was possible. It was a very substantial reform; and ought to have the respectful attention of the House.
  *COLONEL WELBYsaid he wished to know whether it was possible to reduce a sum of money which the Committee was not asked to vote. This was an additional Estimate for £550,000 in connection with Somaliland. He doubted whether the general staff was included in that Vote. But if he were in order in discussing it, he should like to ask various questions about it, as it was one of the most important things connected with the Army. It was really a new departure on the part of the Secretary of State for War; and he should like to know its precise position. Any one who had studied the organisation of foreign armies knew that

  213
  the general staff was the nerve system of the Army. Without a general staff the Japanese could not have won the victories they had in the Far East, nor could the Germans have won their victories in 1870. He should like to know if the general stuff was on the same footing as the general staffs of foreign armies. He also wished to know for what the amount now asked for was required; and whether the reduction which had been moved was on any general item or whether it meant the condemnation of the general staff. He did not know how the hon. Gentleman opposite imagined the Army could be worked without a general staff. The more effective the general staff the better the Army would be prepared for war.
  *MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid that the hon. Gentleman opposite, in his very brief speech, gave one reason, and one only, for the omission of the sub-head; and that was entirely inaccurate. That reason was that the War Office was badly administered; but the sub-head had no
  reference to the administration of the War Office. The money was in respect of payments to the Army; and his hon. friends were correct in saving that the greater part of it was for officers sent out to Manchuria to report on the war. Eleven officers were sent out to the Japanese Army, including Sir William Nicholson and Sir Ian Hamilton. The remainder was explained in this way. When the Estimates were drawn up a reduction was anticipated which had not yet been realised. They had looked a little too far ahead. The Report of the Committee which considered the matter was at present before the Army Council; and he could assure the House that the saving they had anticipated would be realised. They were now asking the Committee for the amount by which the Army Estimates had been reduced as compared with the preceding year.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 153; Noes, 202. (Division List No. 17.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Edwards, Frank

  Kilbride, Denis

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Elibank, Master of

  Labouchere, Henry

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Elliee, Capt EC (SAndrw'sBghs.

  Lambert, George

  Allen, Charles P.

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Emmott, Alfred

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Beaumont, Went worth C.B.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Blake, Edward

  Ferguson, R.C. Munro (Leith)

  Levy, Maurice

  Boland, John

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Brigg, John

  Field, William

  Lloyd-George, David

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Findlay, Alexander (LanarkNE

  Lough, Thomas

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lundon, W.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Flynn, James Christopher

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Burns, John

  Gilhooly, James

  M'Crae, George

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Caldwell, James

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Cameron, Robert

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Hammond, John

  Mooney, John J.

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Harcourt, Lewis

  Murnagham, George

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydvil)

  Murphy, John

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Norman, Henry

  Crean, Eugene

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Crombie, John William

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nussey, Thomas Williams

  Crooks, William

  Higham, John Sharpe

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

  Cullinan, J.

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

  O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMid

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

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

  Delany, William

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Devlin, Charles Ramsay Galway

  Johnson, John

  O'Dowd, John

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon,N

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Mara, James

  Doogan, P.C.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan,W

  Parrott, William

  Partington, Oswald

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Perks, Robert William

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Slack, John Bamford

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Rea, Russell

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Whitley, George (York, W.R.

  Reddy, M.

  Spencer, Rt. HnC. R (Northants

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Wills, Arthur Walters (NDorset

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Sullivan, Donal

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

  Roche, John

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Runciman, Walter

  Tennant, Harold John

  Young, Samuel

  Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Shackleton, David James

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—.Mr.

  Sheehy, David

  Toulmin, George

  M'Kenna and Mr. Warner.

  NOES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End)

  Alhusen, Augustus Henry E.

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants.,Fareham

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Fergusson, Rt,Hn.SirJ.(Manc'r

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn.Hugh

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Legge, Col. Hop. Heneage

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Finlay, Sir RB. (Inv'rn'ss B'ghs)

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Baird, John George Alexander

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Flower, Sir Ernest

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

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r)

  Forster, Henry William

  Lowe, Francis William

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Garfit, William

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestort

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Bartley, Sir George G.T.

  Gordon, Hn. J.E.(Elgin & Nairn)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Gordon, J. ( Londonderry, S.)

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Bill, Charles

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Bingham, Lord

  Gore, Hon. Sir F. Ormsby-

  Malcolm, Ian

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Maxwell, W.J.H (Dumfriesshire

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

  Greene, W. Raymond (Gambs.

  Milner, Rt.Hn.Sir Frederick G.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Gretton, John

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Hain, Edward

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Bull, William James

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Campbell,J.H.M.(Dublin Univ.)

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G.(Midd'x

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hamilton,Marq.of(L'nd'nderry

  Mount, William Arthur

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

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent,Ashford

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Murray, Charles J. (Goventry)

  Chamberlain, Rt.Hon.J.(Birm.

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Nicholson, William Graham

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

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Chapman, Edward

  Heath, SirJames(Staffords.NW

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

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

  Helder, Augustus

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Percy, Earl

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Cross,Herb.Shepherd(Bolton)

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharpe

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Hoult, Joseph

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Howard, John (Kent,Faversham

  Purvis, Robert

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Pym, G. Guy

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Hozier, Hon James Henry Cecil

  Rankin, Sir James

  Denny, Colonel

  Hunt, Rowland

  Rasch, Sir Frederick Carne

  Dewar,SirT.B.(Tower Hamlets

  Jessel,Captain Herbert Merton

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Kenyon-Slaney,Rt.Hon.Col.W.

  Renwick, George

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  216

  217

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Sackville, Col. S.G. Stopford

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Willoughby de Eresby. Lord

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Thornton, Percy M.

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

  Samuel, Sir Harry S. (Limehouse

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M

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

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

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

  Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew.)

  Tuff, Charles

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Sineon, Sir Barrington

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Turnour, Viscount

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

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

  Valentia, Viscount

  Wylie, Alexander

  Spear, John Ward

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exter)

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

  Walroad, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Stewart, Sir Mark J M'Taggart

  Warde, Colonel G.E.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

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

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Stroyan, John

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts)

  Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Original Question again proposed.
  *SIR A. HAYTERdrew attention to the increase of expenditure for the general staff, and pointed out that the effect of the increase this year was to neutralise the reduction made in the previous year. With regard to extra-regimental expenditure under Sub-head C., it had been truly said by the Secretary of State for War that what really governed the amount of the Estimates was the number of men; but when the country was asked to pay a sum of £9,000,000 in respect of this item, the House would see where a large reduction might be made. The Secretary of State for War had promised to reduce the battalions which were created for the purposes of the Boer War. That would seem to be a natural reduction, but those battalions still existed. Another natural reduction would be in the garrison at Malta, which consisted of nine regiments of the Line, although there was no larger artillery garrison there than at Gibraltar, where only three regiments of the Line were stationed. In his opinion it would be most desirable to reduce this enormous Vote by the diminution of the unnecessary garrisons maintained at Malta and elsewhere. The number of men entitled to deferred pay had been so largely diminished that last year the amount voted on that account was reduced by £304,000; but now an additional number of men came forward who were supposed to be entitled to deferred pay amounting to £10,000. He wished to know how this had arisen. The whole House would welcome the provision of £500,000 for the Army Reserve, because the more the country had of seasoned troops the better. He wished to know, however,
  218
  whether the increase of £400,000 was on account of the nine-years service men. He intended to raise on a future occasion the question whether the adoption of the system of nine years service was advisable, seeing that many exports considered that term to be, three years too long for service in India. Referring to an item "Proceeds of sale of cast animals and surplus stores," he stated that the Public Accounts Committee had had a great deal of trouble over the sales of surplus stores in South Africa, and nobody reading that Committee's Report could doubt that there had been enormous miscalculations of accounts. In some cases it was not known whether the sales had been by public tender or private treaty, and certainly in one case, the price was much lower than the sum advertised as the minimum that would be taken. Saddles, for instance, were bought that were unfit for the men to sit in, and were sold for a shilling each. Then there was the considerable loss of £32,000 upon 11,000 horses which were sold by contract, the contractor in question having become bankrupt after, he had paid £50,000 of the £80,000 which was the contract sum, and there being no security whatever behind him the country had to bear the loss. He hoped that in future the authorities at the War Office would watch more closely the way in which surplus stores were disposed of. Similar occurrences to those which he had mentioned happened in connection with the breaking up of the concentration camps. No store accounts had been kept, and consequently no stocktaking was possible, and it could not be ascertained whether losses were being incurred.
  The paragraph in the Report of the Public Accounts Committee to which he

  219
  particularly invited attention was as follows—
  "In addition to £1,381,000 received from the Crown Agents for blockhouses, stores, and animals, there were numerous sales of surplus stores by Military Boards and Army Departments. In regard to the latter, it was noticed that large quantities of surplus supplies were sold below the minimum rate at which tenders were invited. Your Committee are of opinion that in future officers conducting sales should be instructed to report how the sales were conducted, viz., by public tender or private treaty, and whether the best prices obtainable were realised."
  These matters were now past, but as the House had had no opportunity of considering the Committee's Report he had ventured to refer to the matter on the present occasion.
  MR. BUCHANANasked how much of this Supplementary Estimate was due to the South African War. It would be difficult to ascertain exactly the total expenses of the war; possibly the sum would never be arrived at accurately, but it was the duty of Members to do their best. If the right hon. Gentleman would state generally how much of the Estimate was entailed by that war he would put the Committee in possession of valuable information. He could confirm the remarks of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Walsall as to the difficulty the Public Accounts Committee had had in dealing with these matters, and the injury which had been and was being done to the interests of the British taxpayers in consequence. As to the "Increased Colonial Contributions and Miscellaneous Receipts," he presumed they were practically all increased colonial contributions. He also asked whether it was not somewhat unusual for so large a sum as £160,000 out of the contribution from India to be credited to a Supplementary Estimate instead of to the main Estimates for the year.
  MR. WHITLEYcomplained of the unsatisfactory form of the Vote, and asked whether he was not correct in saying that the sum asked for for new purposes was not £550,000 but £1,536,000, the difference being met by transfers of excesses from other Votes. The Public Accounts Committee evidently did not approve of this method of making the
  220
  accounts appear smaller than they really were, because in their Report they called attention—
  "To the constant practice of obtaining Treasury authority for the application of savings under one Vote to meet deficiencies in another and totally different Vote."
  Surely some regard ought to be paid by the Secretary of State for War to that expression of opinion. With regard to the Vote for the general staff, for a period of three months during the time of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor double pay was given in consequence of there being two sets of officers holding the same appointments. That condition of things was brought about by the setting up of the Army Corps scheme in such a hurry. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to assure the Committee that there were no such dual appointments in consequence of the abolition of that scheme in a similar hurry. The Committee would doubtless remember that the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor was sharply reprimanded by the Public Accounts Committee for having diverted for the purpose of those dual salaries a portion of the £5,000 allocated to the Secretary of State for War. He trusted nothing of the sort was being done in the present Vote. Unless that sort of thing was put a stop to, there would be no end to the possible claims on that £5,000 for objects altogether different from those for which the money was voted. The fund was allocated to a clear and definite purpose, but in the very first year of its existence the then Secretary of State for War used it for a purpose altogether contrary to the regulations. That was a gross misuse of public money, and he hoped the present Secretary of State for War would give an assurance that nothing of the kind was being permitted during the current year.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEasked whether the last paragraph on page 3 of the Supplementary Estimates indicated a re-sale of stores to India which were not wanted for the campaign in Somaliland or in South Africa, and for which money had been recovered from India.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTKK,said he would reply in the first place to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Walsall. It was a fact that the War Office authorities had not got rid of men from the Army as rapidly as they had hoped and anticipated would be the case. As long as the present demand on the Army existed it was impossible to get rid of men unless there were others to replace them. When he spoke of dispensing with the fourteen battalions it was always on condition that they should be replaced by other units available for service in India. But that would not hasten the reduction. Men who were serving on engagements could be got rid of only at the end of their engagements, or by their voluntarily passing into the Reserve at an earlier period. In the early part of the year the War Office authorities were unable to allow them to pass prematurely into the Reserve. They took the ordinary course of allowing men to pass into the Reserve, in the third year. The Army had now been reduced to its normal figure, but the excess in the infantry would not only be wiped out but far more. It was the deliberate opinion of the Army Council that it was better to continue recruiting nine-years men this year rather than allow the regiments to go on in the condition in which they stood. With regard to Malta, the garrison there had been fixed after a careful review of the general needs of defence. He was not prepared to say whether that allocation was correct or not. The establishments of the Mediterranean garrisons would be somewhat reduced. With regard to deferred pay they estimated that there would be a large reduction, which they placed at £304,000. It was exceedingly difficult when dealing with a large number of individuals acting according to their own caprice to know what would be their collective requirements during the year. Their estimate was exceedingly close, but they were £10,000 short, and that was the reason why this amount appeared in the Estimate. There was no foundation for the suggestion that they were paying more for the nine-years men than for any other class. They were now getting men who would relieve them of a great expenditure in the
  222
  future, but they were not paying any more for the nine-years man than the three-years man at the present time.
  With regard to the Accounts, no one would pretend that the transactions which took place during the South African War were those which they would like to continue during peace. The Army Council had taken the best steps in its power to minimise in future the evils arising from the absence of financial control, they were educating officers at the War Office who would take charge of financial matters, and they had laid down the principle that there should be a financial staff attached to all regiments in the field, and such a staff had already been attached to the regiments at home. He had been asked for an explanation in regard to the Colonial appropriations-in-aid. As a matter of fact there had been two windfalls, viz., the recovery of a debt from Sierra Leone, and an additional payment by the Colony of Ceylon due to the increased prosperity of that island, the contribution having a fixed proportion to the revenue. The hon. Member for Halifax seemed to be under a misapprehension in regard to the total of this Estimate. The actual additional sum was £1,150,000, but the hon. Member had not taken into account the savings. The actual excess appropriations-in-aid were £600,000, and £550,000 was on account, of Somaliland. There were no instances where one officer was being given two appointments, nor were there likely to be any. At the present moment he could not say how much of this expenditure belonged to the South African War.
  SIR ROBERT REIDasked if they had come to the end of these charges. He should like to know how much had been recovered since peace was proclaimed, and what the amount was of these charges which belonged to South Africa.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid this was not a matter arising on this Vote, but he would inquire if such information could be furnished.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERmoved a reduction of Item A by £10,000. The

  223
  Secretary for War had said in regard to the Volunteers that it was not so much a question of numbers as efficiency that was required, but in regard to the general staff exactly the opposite policy was being pursued. They were not getting men with more experience in warfare, but were simply increasing the staff and giving the members of it all sorts of work which they would not have to perform in time of war. They had twice as many general officers in proportion to the number of men as other countries, and this was why our Army was costing a great deal more. The Committee had been led to understand that alterations in the Intelligence Department had given rise to a portion of this Vote, but those alterations did not come under this Vote at all; neither did the Army Council. This Vote simply meant an increase of the general staff all over the country at a time when we were supposed to be reducing the Army. For these reasons he thought there were very strong reasons against this increase. Many of these items were due to bad estimates by the War Office, for they were 10 per cent. too small and that was very serious. The country could not stand these enormous expenses, and they ought to have from the Secretary for War some actual proof that economy was being practised and some assurance that the right hon. Gentleman's pledges in the direction of economy were not mere words and promises. He begged to move a reduction in the Vote by £10,000.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That Item. Vote 1, Sub-head A (Par, etc., of General Staff) be reduced by £10,000."—(Mr Courtenay Warner.)
  CAPTAIN NORTONasked for a clear explanation as to the proportion of the £15,000 which was allocated to the officers who went to Japan and Manchuria—the officers with the Japanese army and those with the Russian army. He should also like to know whether any portion of the Vote was for a certain number of officers who went out to Japan under the impression that they would be allowed to go to the front, but who, as a matter of fact, simply remained in Japan to study the language. It seemed to him that a
  224
  certain proportion of the £15,000 must necessarily be for a number of officers who were doing duty under the new scheme and a certain proportion for those who were doing duty under the rejected scheme. He wanted to know what proportion of the amount had been caused by the charge from one policy to another.
  *MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid the hon. Member for Lichfield seemed disposed to credit the War Office war a foresight which he could not claim for it. The hon. Member suggested that they ought to have included in the Estimates last year the pay and allowances of certain officers who went out to winess the proceedings in Manchuria. The Estimates were made up in October and November and presented in January and February. The war was declared on 6th February last year, and his hon. friend could hardly say that the War Office ought to have anticipated the sending out of officers for any such purpose.
  CAPTAIN NORTONasked who were the officers who would absorb the £10,000. When the Committee received that information they would be able to judge whether this extra expenditure was caused by a certain number of appointments which were made under the Army Corps scheme. That was what they wished to arrive at. Another point on which he wished information was in connection with the officers of the Indian Army. Was it not the case that India paid the expenses of these officers? He had himself raised an objection in that House to the cost of a British officer being placed on the Indian establishmeat—that was to say, that India should be paying while the officer was one who ought to be paid for by the British Government.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid £5,000 was due to the expenses of the officers sent to Manchuria. He presumed that was for extra expenses paid by this country in respect of the officers who went to Manchuria over and above what was contributed by the Indian Government. If that was not so it was clear that the Indian Government ought to contribute a certain portion of the £5,000.
  *MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTwas understood to indicate assent.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid that what they wanted to know was the cause of the increased expenditure of £10,000. The Financial Secretary said it was not an increase of expenditure, that it was the result of a saving that had not yet been realised. How was it a saving if the money was spent? He wanted to know how much of the £10,000 had been paid under the head of "general staff" irrespective of the officers in Manchuria. The hon. Gentleman could easily put the Committee at rest if he would tell them the names of the officers in question, and their rank, or in general terms indicate the causes of the outlay. The general staff of our Army was more expensive in proportion to the number of men than that of any other army in the world, except, perhaps, that of the Venezuelan army. There was a very shrewd suspicion on his side of the House that the reason for paying this £10,000 more was that the debris of the Army Corps system had left a great number of appointments winch were not now operative, and that in consequence the taxpayer was a considerable loser. Until the hon. Gentleman was able to explain more clearly than he had done the reasons why a saving which was anticipated had not been realised he did not think the Committee could possibly allow this Vote to proceed any further.
  *MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid he thought he had already explained the matter. The hon. Gentleman had raised the question of the staff which, he considered, cost too much. A Committee had been sitting to inquire into this very question. The Committee had reported making certain recommendations, the effect of which would be to reduce considerable the cost of the staff. These recommendations were now before the Treasury.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid the hon. Gentleman had not even attempted to answer the question. He asked the reason why the saving had not been realised, and what new officers were being employed whom last year it was not expected would be employed at the present time. It was a simple
  226
  question. Let there be no misunderstanding. If the hon. Gentleman did not know he had better say so, and the Committee would see whether they could go on with the Vote or not.
  *MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid it was absolutely unreasonable that he should be asked to give the names of the officers.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLasked the hon. Gentleman to state whether the officers wore generals and majors on the staff, or connected with the active and combatant ranks of die Army, or with the transport and organisation, or whether they were artillery officers, cavalry officers, or infantry officers. Surely the hon. Gentleman had not come down to the House without knowing What officers had rendered a cost of £10,000 necessary.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESthought the question of the hon. Member for Oldham was unreasonable. The Minister was dependent for his information as to details on the Departmental staff. The Minister who sat on the front bench was dependent on the men who sat in the officials' gallery for all his information and for most of his brains. It was not fair to ask for details of this kind. They were not dealing now with the Vote for the general staff, but with the balance of the appropriations-in-aid which had not been estimated before. The heading of the Vote described with absolute accuracy what they were asked to vote for. It was as follows—
  "Estimate of the Amount required during the year ending 31st March, 1905, to meet Expenditure on the Military Operations in Somaliland, for which no provision was made in the Original Army Estimate; for the Years; also to authorise the appropriation of certain Receipts, in excess of those included in the Original Army Estimates for the Year, to defray expenditure in excess of the sums therein provided for Army services other than the Somali-land Operations."
  His view was that the Vote was in order to give full information to the Committee. The only money which they were asked to vote that day was really for Somaliland and Manchuria. Of course the Vote raised enormous questions. Were it a Supplementary Estimate the policy of the

  227
  original Estimate could not be raised. There had been a ruling given to that effect. But this was not a Supplementary Vote at all. It was an additional Vote, and the whole policy of Somaliland could be raised on it, past, present, and future. The history of Somaliland might be entered into from the days of Adam and Eve down to the present time. He could conceive, however, that it was not desirable to raise matters which did not arise except as accidental and incidental to the Vote.
  MR. WINSTON CHUKCHILLsaid that they were indebted to the hon. Member for King's Lynn for the information he had given to the Committee, but the hon. Gentleman had been asking questions which were germane to the item on the Paper. They were of real and substantial importance and were connected with the staff of the Army. A question had been put to the representative of the War Office, and that hon. Gentleman had had plenty of time to go under the gallery to get the information wanted, but he had not yet answered the simple question put to him. In what direction were the War Office spending this money? It was not enough to tell the Committee that they had hoped to make certain economies, but had not been able to do so. There must be some reason, and the Committee should know it. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would be able to explain in general terms, if he was not able to give the names of the officers, their rank and the Army in which they served. He trusted also that the right hon. Gentleman was better acquainted with this Army Vote than his subordinate.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he was sorry that the hon. Member for King's Lynn had thought it necessary to make so unusually discourteous a remark about his hon. friend. As to the staff, it was contemplated that they would have been able to reorganise the whole of the Army commands and put many of the posts now held by individual officers—some colonels, some major-generals — on a different footing as regarded emoluments and the rank they held. The War Office had anticipated that they would have made greater progress than had been
  228
  actually accomplished. They had had long and continuous conferences at the War Office in regard to the officers appropriated to all the new organisation. But there were officers holding posts who were entitled under their appointment—
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: Under the Army Corps?
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Officers of the rank of generals in the Army, and it was proposed that the reorganised posts should be held by officers of a lower rank. But the present staff officers could not be displaced at once or deprived of their emoluments. Considerable progress had already been made in cheapening the cost of many of these posts, and they would be able, as soon as the Treasury sanction was obtained, to carry out those changes all over the country. On account of the impossibility of dealing with the position of individual officers, it could not be said on what day or month the transfer and change of officers would be made to individual posts.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLasked if there had been no increase in the cost of the, general staff for the current year? Had this £15,000 been added to the cost which was charged on the Estimates last year?
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that there had been a reduction of £4,000; but the whole reduction anticipated had not been effected. The hon. Member must be aware of the great complications involved in this matter.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid it was quite clear that there had been some reductions in certain cases. He knew that the colonels in depots had been reduced in number. But the promise which the Secretary for War gave last year in the discussion on the Army Estimates was that these reductions would be so great that they would meet the extra expenditure on other branches. The extra expenditure had come in, but not the reductions. In fact, there was an increase in the expenditure on the Army and no reduction had been made on this

  229
  Vote as promised. Under these circumstances he thought the Opposition were bound to stick to the Motion for the reduction of the Vote. The Secretary for War, with all his vast knowledge and great ability, had been unable to carry out these small economies, although pledged to them; and if they did no begin with the small economies the opportunity for securing big economies next year would be lost.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid he did not gather from the explanation the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War had given to the hon. Member for Oldham how far any part of this £15,000 put down on the Estimate was due to the new scheme promulgated in the special Army Order issued in the middle of January last. In that Order there was a large and new division of the United Kingdom into zones of defence, fresh commands, and one thing and another. If that, scheme, had been put into operation it must have involved a large cost for staff officers. How far had there been any increase in the cost of the Army from that scheme, and, if there had been any increase, how much of it was represented by the present Vote? The Financial Secretary to the War Office said that the cost of the present staff was too much; how much would the new staff cost?
  MR. McKENNAsaid that the hon. and gallant Member opposite had twitted him with being extremely brief in moving the previous reduction. But, the Financial Secretary to the War Office insisted on the Committee not wasting time in discussing that item; therefore he had put his Amendment in the briefest terms. In his previous remarks he had said that the state, of the War Office was worse than ever; he should have said the War Office, administration. It now appeared that the Secretary of State for War anticipated that he would have been able to clear up the existing muddle in the War Office more rapidly than he had been able to do; and the right hon. Gentleman apparently regretted as much as they on the Opposition side of the House did that the muddle still existed. In spite of the censure of the hon. and
  230
  gallant Gentleman opposite he maintained that he was absolutely justified in moving his Amendment in the terms he had done.
  MR. DALZIELasked if the Committee were to understand that this item covered the pay of certain officers in Somaliland?
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No.
  MR. DALZIELsaid he would then defer his remarks on that expedition to another occasion.
  *MR. McCRAEasked what part of this amount for the pay of the general staff was due to the late six Army Corps scheme? The Committee should get some information on that point. Had the right hon. Gentleman been able to save the cost of the staff of the Army Corps scheme of his predecessor, or was the right hon. Gentleman still paying for the general staff then set up?
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid they had been told that the cost of the Army staff under Item A was a reduction of £4,000 on the Estimates voted last year. Did he understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Estimate last year was not £281,000 but £285,000 under the head of general staff. Had the right hon. Gentleman failed to prevent an increase or merely failed to make a reduction on the Vote? Was the Item under heading A more than the similar Vote last year.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT:£1,000 more.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid that the right hon. Gentleman explained that he had been carrying out a policy of retrenchment, but had failed. He had not been able to reduce this Vote by so much as he anticipated—only by £4,000. But now they were told that after reducing it by £4,000 the total amount was £1,000 more.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that they must compare like with like. There was an item here which was not in last year's Vote at all—an entirely

  231
  unforeseen contingency due to the war. What he had said was absolutely correct.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid he was obliged to his right hon. friend for his explanation, which met the point fully. He hoped his right hon. friend would not think that there was any suggestion that he was not as fully acquainted with the multifarious details involved in the War Department as far as any man could be. The explanation of his right hon. friend was clear; but it did not remove the unsatisfactory fact that he had failed to make the economies in the general staff of the Army which he anticipated. He did not reproach his right hon. friend for that. Everyone knew that when officers got special forms of employment they could not be dismissed or reduced to ordinary regimental duties or put on half pay. They would have to serve out their terms of service, and economy would, therefore, necessarily be a gradual process. There was no personal reproach to his right hon. friend in supporting the reduction. He would support it because the general staff had for a long period of time showed a great and steady tendency to increase. His right hon. friend was aware of that. He was also evidently aware that money had been wasted on the staff of the Army and that economics were possible. His right hon. friend regretted he was only able to effect half the economics which he regarded as desiable and possible. He himself believed that the pressure which was exercised in former years by the House of Commons had given the right hon. Gentleman some leverage, some backing, in his attemps to procure a reduction of the unnecessary money wasted on the staff of the Army. He did not mean the Intelligence Branch. He referred to the gold-braided functionaries with ornamental duties at Aldershot and Salisbury Plain. They were bound, however, to criticise the expenditure in order to encourage the right hon. Gentleman to make reductions. They would vote for a reduction which the right hon. Gentleman admitted was necessary, and which he hoped to achieve this year. He should therefore support his hon. friends in the division.
  *MR. MCCRAEasked what part of the cost necessary in connection with the
  232
  Army Corps scheme still remained on the Vote. When the Estimates before the Committee were presented they erew told that they were not real Estimates, because they dealt with a scheme which had been abolished. He thought it it would be convenient if the right hon. Gentleman would state what proportion of the amount was retained for the general staff under the new scheme.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he could not give the details off-hand.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEasked what would be the reduced cost under the new scheme.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that the hon. Gentleman had better wait for the Estimates. The details had not yet received the sanction of the Treasury.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid that there were certain officers now serving under a special Army Order. What part of the Estimate referred to them.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that a large part of the new organisation had not yet been carried out, as the details had not been yet sanctioned by the Treasury. They had adopted a system of grading which had not yet received the sanction of the Treasury; meantime the officers were engaged on their work. If the hon. Gentleman would wait until the Estimates were before the House he would be prepared to make a full explanation.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he wished to ask a question with reference to Somaliland.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman cannot discuss Somaliland on the question before the House.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he did not desire to discuss Somaliland; but it appeared to him that the money for Item A was not being provided out of the Estimates, but out of the appropriation of extra receipts. What were those extra receipts? Were the War Office following the usual course in this matter? It appeared to him they were redistributing the original Estimates as the

  233
  Treasury did under the Appropriation Act.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that the Estimate was made out in accordance I with the wishes of the Public Accounts Committee, and gave more information than in its previous form.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid that the right hon. Gentleman stated that the Army Estimates would be laid before Parliament shortly.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: That is not relevant to this item.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid he only mentioned' it because the right hon.
  Gentleman stated that his explanation with regard to the general staff would be given on the Army Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman had answered the question put to him and had explained very fully to the House the reason why he had failed to achieve his hopes of reduction. But he would not think them unreasonable if they continued to press for that reduction by the only means by which that reduction could be pressed, namely, by a division.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 175; Noes, 227. (Division List, No. 18.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William(Cork, N. E.)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Edwards, Frank

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Allen, Charles P.

  Emmott, Alfred

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Ambrose, Robert

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  M'Crae, George

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Farrell, James Patrick

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Ffrench, Peter

  M'Hugh, Partick A.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Field, William

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Austin, Sir John

  Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, NE

  'M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Mooney, John J.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.

  Gilhooly, James

  Morgan. J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Benn, John Williams

  Gladstone. Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Boland, John

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Murphy, John

  Brigg, John

  Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Hammond, John

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

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Harcourt, Lewis

  O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMid

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Burns, John

  Harwood, George

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

  Buxhton, Sydney Charles

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Caldwell, James

  Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Cameron, Robert

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Dowd, John

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Higham, John Sharpe

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Causton, Richard Knight

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

  O'Mara, James

  Cawley, Frederick

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Parrott, William

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Partington, Oswald

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Johnson, John

  Perks, Robert William

  Crean, Eugene

  Joyce, Michael

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Crombie, John William

  Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W.

  Rea, Russell

  Crooks, William

  Kilbride, Denis

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Cullinan, J.

  Kitson, Sir James

  Reddy, M.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Labouchere, Henry

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Lambert, George

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Delany, William

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)

  Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galway

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Levy, Maurice

  Roche, John

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rose, Charles Day

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Runciman, Walter

  Duffy, William J.

  Lough, Thomas

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Duncan. J. Hasting

  Lundon, W.

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Shackleton, David James

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

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

  Sheehy, David

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

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Tomkinson, James

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Woodhouse, Sir J T(Huddersf'd

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Young, Samuel

  Soares, Ernest J.

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Mr. Warner and Captain

  Sullivan, Donal

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Norton.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Wills, Arthur Walters (N. Dorset)

  NOES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Hunt, Rowland

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Doughty, Sir George

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

  Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Kenyon-Slaney. Rt. Hon. Col. W

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Maneh'r

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Balfour,RtHnGerald W.(Leeds

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Finlay, Sir R.B.(Inv'rn'ssB'ghs

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. N. R

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Fison, Frederick William

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Fitzgerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Fitzroy, Hn Edward Algernon

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Leveson-Gower Frederick N. S.

  Bill, Charles

  Forster, Henry William

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Bingham, Lord

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Bond, Edward

  Garfit, William

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

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Lowe, Francis William

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn)

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King'sLynn

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets

  Lyttelton, Rt, Hon. Alfred

  Bull, William James

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Campbell, Rt Hn. J. A. (Glasgow

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ.

  Gosehen, Hon. George Joachim

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Marks, Harry Hananel

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

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hain, Edward

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Halsey, Rt. Hn. Thomas F.

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G. Midd'x

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Chapman, Edward

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

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

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hay, Hon. Glaude George

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Heath, Sir James (Staffords, N W)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Helder, Augustus

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Percy, Earl

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Hornre, Frederick William

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Denny, Colonel

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tower Hamlets

  Hoult, Joseph

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Howard, John (Kent Faversham

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Purvis, Robert

  236

  237

  Pym, C. Guy

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Valentia, Viscount

  Rankin, Sir James

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Walrond, Rt. Hn Sir William H.

  Ratcliff, R. F.

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

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Spear, John Ward

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

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk)

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

  Renwick, George

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Stroyan, John

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

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

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Rutherford. W. W. (Liverpool)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Tollemache, Henry, James

  Wylie, Alexander

  Samuel, Sir Harry S. (Limehouse

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Tuff, Charles

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew)

  Turnour, Viscount

  Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Original Question again proposed.
  CAPTAIN NORTONin moving the reduction of Item C by £100,000, said he sympathised with the Secretary of State for War in his inability to carry out the scheme of Army reform which he had laid before the country. One half of the right hon. Gentleman's scheme had absolutely broken down. The right hon. Gentleman, owing to the impossibility of obtaining men for service in India, had been compelled to take these nine-years service men, and had been therefore unable to take the two-years service men. He (Captain Norton) protested against taking men for such a term of service as would serve neither one purpose nor the other. If short-service men were taken the effect was to improve and strengthen the Reserve, while if long-service men were taken we were not compelled to take such a large number of recruits annually. These nine-years service men would be taken to India, and after serving there for seven years would return to this country without the slightest chance of obtaining civil employment. It had been stated that they would be provided for by noncommissioned rank, but the number retained for non-commissioned officers would be extremely small, and the remainder would go to swell the ranks of the unemployed. It would not be denied that a large proportion of this expenditure had been caused by the fact that at the present moment sufficient of these nine-years men had not been trained to go to India.
  238
  The result was that there were sent out to India at a cost of £120 each men who on their arrival were absolutely valueless. He knew from personal experience that only a very small proportion of the men were fit to take the field, and he had seen men fall out by the dozen before the hot weather began. There were some 4,000 or 5,000 of these immature men in India, and they were being rapidly invalided and sent home to swell the ranks of the unemployed. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman was not responsible for that, but would he say when he hoped to be able to obtain sufficient nine-years men to supply the necessary drafts for Ind a each year, and how soon he would be able to put his entire scheme into operation. It the right hon. Gentleman could not get the nine-years men the whole scheme would break down. For how long did he think he would succeed in getting the nine-years men who were now presenting themselves? He was practically absorbing for the Indian reliefs the fourteen battalions the reduction of which had been promised, and it was scarcely fair to take advantage of the necessities of the country in such a way that three or four years hence the deficiency would be much greater than at present. It was his firm belief that if the right hon. Gentleman had the free hand which his ability and knowledge deserved, he would take the wise course of enlisting a long-service Army for India, which would give him a greater margin as regarded recruiting, and enable him to build up a Reserve in this country in the event of certain contingencies in India.

  239
  One of the difficulties in recruiting was the great objection men had to going to South Africa. The experience of the men who had soon service in South Africa had made that sphere extremely unpopular. Men who had enlisted for three years on the distinct understanding that they would not be sent abroad had been sent to India, and the hear in men's minds was that if they enlisted for two years they might on some pretence be shipped to South Africa; consequently they would not enlist at all South African service was unpopular for many reasons.
  *THE CHAIRMANasked whether the point the hon. Member was now referring to had anything to do with the Vote. The fact that an addition of half-a-million of money was wanted seemed to indicate that there were more recruits than before.
  CAPTAIN NORTONsaid the Financial Secretary had pointed out that part of the expenditure was in consequence of the War Office having been unable to bring home three regiments from South Africa. That had added largely to the working expenses of the year, and was presumably included in this item.
  *THE CHAIRMANpointed out that that would not apply to recruits now being sent out to South
  Africa.
  CAPTAIN NORTONsaid the extra pay and necessary allowances applied to the troops in South Africa for whom drafts had to be provided, and he was endeavouring to point out that because of the extreme unpopularity of South African service it was impossible to carry out the arrangement which the right hon. Gentleman contemplated. Troops in South Africa had to do a class of work which they were not called upon to do at home. They strongly objected to being sent out and turned into South African policemen because the constabulary had been so greatly reduced. But they objected still more strenuously to being employed by municipalities to do certain fatigue duties, for which they did indeed receive extra pay, but which extra pay was not one-half the amount paid to other men alongside whom they worked. As a matter of fact, South
  240
  African finances were being relieved at the expense of the finances of this country, and the main point he desired to emphasise in moving this reduction was that the people of Great Britain were being taxed in order to lessen the taxation on the mineowners of South Africa. He begged to move.
  Motion made, and Question, proposed, "That Item, Vote 1, Sub-head C (Regimental Pay, Extra Pay, and Messing Allowances) be reduced by £100,000."— (Captain Norton.)
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that not only had the Estimate all the vices of a Supplementary Estimate, but it had the double vice that there was no financial or warlike reason why it should not have been included in the original Estimates. It represented a miscalculation by the Secretary of State for War, a consequent financial miscalculation on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and therefore a breach of the engagement put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he presented his whole scheme based on the original Estimates. A touching appeal had been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to support him in his desire for economy. He was going to vote against this item and the right hon. Gentleman would have an opportunity of citing him as one, of the advocates of economy, and as one who was determined to oppose every Supplementary Estimate of this nature. They were told in this Vote that the reduction in the strength of the Army anticipated in the original Estimates had not been realised. Had any of the Secretary for War's military schemes gone wrong? Had the nine-years men not come up to the mark? Whatever the cause it represented a serious miscalculation on the part of the Secretary of State for War. The Chancellor of the Exchequer last year gob the House to consent to his new scheme of taxation, and therefore this Supplementary Estimate was a falsification of the Budget. Last year, on the ground of economy, he voted for the Motion of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean to reduce the number of men serving in the Army by 10,000. It was not possible on this

  241
  occasion to deal with the number of men directly, although he thought that if they had a Supplementary Vote for regimental pay and messing allowance there should be a Supplementary Vote for men. This Vote had never been defended on the grounds of new facts, or a special emergency having arisen, or upon any of the grounds which justified the presentation of Supplementary Estimates. It was most important to affirm, not merely in an academic manner, but by a hard-and-fast vote, the absolute necessity for presenting the whole scheme in the Budget, and this House should reject any Supplementary Estimate which was not justified by some sudden emergency having arisen since the Budget. He should certainly feel it his duty to vote for this reduction.
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid the Committee were indebted to the candour of the Secretary of State for War for the strongest argument in support of this reduction. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman had anticipated a reduction, but this could not be realised by reason of the necessity for keeping more troops than he had expected in South Africa. The reason for keeping additional troops there was the reduction which had taken place in the constabulary. It was estimated that 10,000 men would be required for the South African Constabulary, and this was dwelt upon in one of Lieutenant-General Baden-Powell's reports. They were subsequently reduced to 6,000 and then to 5,000 men, and that for financial reasons. The work which used to be done by the constabulary had to be done now by British troops, who would not otherwise be kept there in such large numbers. The War Office was being unfairly saddled with the expenses of these troops, who would not have been kept in South Africa had it not been for the economic necessity of reducing the constabulary. This was not the sole instance in which, indirectly, they were being called upon to provide money because the finances of the Transvaal were not sufficient to pay their way.
  MR. McKENNAsaid the Secretary of State for War had promised that he would not make any proposals which would not have the effect of making a
  242
  substantial reduction in the Army Estimates. So far the right hon. Gentleman had carried out the promise by introducing a supplementary Estimate for £400,000 for pay. The right hon. Gentleman anticipated that he would be able to reduce the Army by fourteen battalions of Regulars, but he had failed to do so. It appeared that the recruits for the three years period had come in so abundantly that he had not been able to reduce the Regulars. But although the three-years men had come in so rapidly the men for service in India had not come in and the former had refused to sign on for the longer period; and so they had had to enlist nine-years men for service in India, with the result that they had got a larger Army thin was intended. That was a miscalculation, and he submitted that they were justified in recording their judgment upon that miscalculation by voting for the reduction. The Secretary for War had got his recruits, but he ought to have realised that he would not have enough men for service in India, and he should have stopped his recruiting for the three years period earlier. Had he done so he would have been able to reduce the Regulars by fourteen battalions and they would not have had to find this extra money for pay. This Vote was to be met largely out of appropriations-in-aid obtained by the sale of surplus animals and stock in South Africa. That stock was bought not out of revenue but with borrowed money, or in other words, they added to their debt in order to pay for the things which they were now selling. When that stock was sold the money should have been applied to the extinction of the Debt. For these reasons he thought every hon. Member who cared for economy ought not to submit to this Vote being passed.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid he was afraid the House was getting so accustomed to trans-actions of this kind that hon. Members had ceased to wonder at the Money which had been raised by loan and after wards repaid had frequently been applied to revenue. Money was raised by loan during the war to purchase certain stocks, and when those stocks were sold the money had been applied to revenue instead of to the extinction of debt, as it

  243
  would have been under any other Government. They had been told by the Financial Secretary to the War Office that at least three regiments more were being kept in South Africa than he had anticipated. His impression was that a good many more than three regiments were being kept there for certain reasons. There could be no doubt that British troops were being put to purposes for which this country ought not to be called upon to pay. He could produce from Johannesburg newspapers sufficient incidents occuring in a single week which would show how the soldiers were being employed to suppress riots in compounds, and in bringing back Chinamen who had escaped from those compounds.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Does the hon. Member say that, as a matter of fact, British soldiers are so employed?
  MR. WHITLEY: Do you deny it?
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Yes, I do. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Withdraw."]
  MR. WHITLEYsaid that these charges had been frequently made and questions had been asked upon this point, but they had not been able to get any information or any denial that British troops were being employed in this way.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Give me one instance.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid it was reported that on certain occasions the military were called in. Did the right hon. Gentleman deny that the soldiers were being employed for police purposes in the Transvaal? He did not deny it.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Yes, I do.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid the right hon. Gentleman was giving a denial to what, he understood, was pretty well known. When the Constabulary were reduced from 10,000 to 4,000 the Transvaal wanted to save their own finances. We actually paid at this time last year no less than £1,000,000 as a contribution to the Transvaal revenues in order to enable them to pay off those men, and to reduce the force to that extent. We ought not to be
  244
  called upon to meet the additional pay of soldiers in South Africa because the Constabulary had been reduced to such an extent that it was necessary to keep extra British troops in that country. It was quite correct, as his hon. friend had said, that the work which the British troops had to do in South Africa was making the service intensely unpopular. If police were required, he thought the best thing the right hon. Gentleman could do was to call on the mineowners to pay for the service which was necessary.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid it would facilitate the discussion of the Vote if the right hon. Gentleman would now give his reply on the question of the £400,000.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he was not proposing to discuss the future policy, which would be discussed with the Estimates of next year; but there were one or two criticisms with which he wanted to deal and some misapprehensions he wished to correct. In the first place, the hon. Member for West Newington seemed to imagine that the service in India was particularly unpopular, but it was a mistake to suppose it was as unpopular as he represented. And with regard to the service in South Africa, so much was being done for the comfort and welfare of the soldiers that he was informed that it was not unpopular now. Special facilities were given for the men to abridge their service and to go into the Reserves, but they would not accept the offer made. Some hon. Members had spoken with regard to the whole question of the excess, and, with regard to the fourteen battalions specifically mentioned by the hon. Member for Oldham it was perfectly true that it was contemplated they would replace them, but it could not be done all at once. It would be idle before they had anything to replace them to take away any units at all. He had been told that he had promised reductions in Army expenditure, but he hoped he should not be condemned until he had had an opportunity of presenting the Estimates to the House. He was confident, however, that the reduction of men was far more valuable than the reduction of units. Both courses saved money, but the latter would put us in a difficulty in finding

  245
  men to meet the possible demands from India. The hon. Member for Old-ham had said he understood that these battalions would be taken away during the year, and it was part of his proposals that they should be replaced by other battalions. The hon. Member for Dumfries said they were keeping troops in South Africa in excess of the number required. There was an element of truth in that. They did keep three cavalry regiments in South Africa after the date they promised to take them back, and this would add very materially to the cost of the Army during that period, but they had more than kept faith by reducing the South African garrison below the figure they promised. They were not able to bring back three cavalry regiments at the actual date anticipated, and the fact that they were delayed had added very largely to the cost of the Army during that period.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: What is the number of men there now?
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: 21,000. He denied that the troops were performing any constabulary duties other than those always performed by troops which might be called to aid the civil power; and he declared that the South African garrison was now placed on the exact undertaking given. The hon. Member for King's Lynn said it was absolutely unjustifiable to make any addition to the amount of the pay of the men in the Army without some grave reason. He did not quarrel with that, but his contention was that there had been grave reason. He had acted in this matter not lightly and without regard to the will of the House. He believed he had acted as any other hon. Member in his place would have acted. He had to consider not what was the obligation of a particular Vote. He had had to consider not whether he would do what was most pleasing to himself, but whether the Army was fit for the purposes of war. He found we were in a very great danger in having a costly Army unfit for the emergency of war, and he took the only measure within his power to fit the Army for war. This measure had been successful, but it had entailed some additional cost. The situation was
  246
  this: They were accumulating battalions of men who were not available in times of peace for furnishing drafts for India and who would be present in far too great numbers if we had been called upon to take part in war. This was not a normal situation, and it was changing for the worse. What was to be done? He had been reproached for not having stopped this surplus recruiting sooner, but it was impossible for him to make any change until he had had some opportunity of laying his proposals before the House. The moment they were able to put the matter before both Houses of Parliament he took steps to stop the three years recruiting. But the inevitable consequence was a temporary increase in the Army. They could not get rid of the three-years men, a great many of whom, in his opinion, were entirely redundant. Consequently the infantry had gone up beyond what he considered necessary, but they would repair this excess, and far more, in a few months, and they would have an exodus from the Army daring next year which would be in no sense made up by the additions they proposed to make.
  Hon. Members had asked why the excess occurred at the beginning of last year. There was alarm and uncertainty with regard to the international position. The war in the East had just broken out, and no one could doubt that, whenever a great struggle of that kind commenced, a country which had so many interests as our own might possibly be concerned, and they, therefore, thought it necessary to keep up a much larger reserve in South Africa than otherwise would have been the case. The Government thought it necessary to keep up a larger reserve of horses in South Africa, where they could easily be embarked for India, while the crisis lasted. But when the emergency was over the horses were sold. The same reason held good as to transport in South Africa. In the early part of the year it was found to be undesirable to under take a reduction of transport in South Africa as long as it was uncertain whether they might not have to move transport and units to India or to any other destination. That alarm had passed away, and the original intention had now been carried out in respect of transport and the upkeep of horses in South

  247
  Africa. It was perfectly true that in one sense this excess of the three-years service men was the result of miscalculation. He would prefer to say that it was the result of a temporary miscalculation when no correct calculation was possible. In this matter they had to deal with the individualidiosnycrasiesof particular men, and no one could forecast twenty-four hours ahead what the action of these men would be. He believed that the officers were quite unable to state up to the last day whether a soldier intended to remain in the service or to go out of it. He thought he had given an explanation of this matter which ought to commend itself to hon. Members. He certainly took exception to the phrase which had been used by the hon. Member for Halifax as to the soldiers in South Africa being used to "round up" the Chinese. He objected to the phrase on behalf of the British soldiers serving in South Africa. British soldiers were not being used to "round up" Chinamen in South Africa; and he considered the use of the phrase so offensive that, speaking on behalf of the British Army, he repudiated it entirely.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid he was quite sure that his hon. friend the Member for Halifax never intended to apply the phrase offensively to, or to make any suggestion which reflected in any way on, the British soldier. As there was nothing offensive in asking the question, he was glad to hear the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that soldiers were not being employed, and would not be employed in future, in that capacity. He did not wish to enter on the large question of Army reorganisation with which the Secretary of State for War had dealt extensively, and at the same time given the Committee some information upon the alterations in the term of service in the Army. He quite understood that it was a matter of urgency to meet a difficulty of the day. The nine years service was a very good corrective to the three years system introduced by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, but he predicted that the right hon. Gentleman would have to revert to a seven years term in the Army and five in the Reserve. The statement of the right hon. Gentleman,
  248
  however, was the first indication which had been given that his scheme of last session was not being carried forward. In that statement the right hon. Gentleman had used very strong language in regard to the necessity of making economies in money, and reductions not merely in the numbers but the units of the Army. But in the statement now offered by the right hon. Gentleman there was neither economy of money nor economy of numbers foreshadowed. The right hon. Gentlemen had made the keystone of his Army policy of reform a reduction of fourteen battalions in the infantry, while creating a number of inferior battalions which were to be improvised out of the Militia, and for which the Militia was to be sacrificed and destroyed. The fourteen battalions had not been disbanded, and the Militia battalions were not being put upon a Regular footing. The right hon. Gentleman now came forward with a different plan, which was to make the Militia liable for foreign service. He pressed the right hon. Gentleman to say whether the forthcoming Estimates included the reduction of these fourteen battalions. Surely that was a very important point, and the Committee would be very glad of the information that the economies which the right hon. Gentleman promised the House of Commons last year in numbers and units were to be made in the Estimates to be presented to Parliament in a week or so.
  *MR, ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he I would rather answer that question on the Estimates.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid the right hon. Gentleman must be now in possession of the information.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that was quite true, but he would like to present his Estimates as a whole.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid they could only judge by what they now saw, and the economies which the right hon. Gentleman promised had not been carried out. He regretted to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that he thought the reduction of men was more important than the

  249
  reduction of units. One of the great complaints had been regarding the great number of units which had not been properly filled up. An inefficient battalion, a squeezed-lemon battalion, or a weak battalion cost nearly as much to maintain as regarded high officers and barracks, band, and other things as a highly efficient battalion at full strength. A large number of weak-units cost more than a small number of strong units containing the same number of men. He regretted, therefore, that the right hon Gentleman had not found it possible to face a reduction in the number of units. The practice of making a large quantity of paper cadres, to fill which the men were not available, had been a most fertile source of waste. The question of reducing the number of units was a matter of high policy. He was quite certain the Secretary of State would not be able to effect a reduction unless he had great backing behind him. The moment the right hon. Gentleman tried to abolish battalions, to Collect mess plate, and to distribute officers among other regiments of the Army, he would encounter tremendous resistance; but until he did that, all his high aspirations and paper plans for reconstruction were really not of any serious importance. It would be easy for the right hon. Gentleman to reduce the number of men in the Army by a healthy process of inquiring into characters more rigidly and by taking recruits of greater height and chest measurement. By stiffening the standard and making the requirements of the soldier more exacting the number of men would automatically diminish. Therefore it was not quite accurate to say that the number of men had risen automatically, simply because there was a change in the conditions of recruiting. He was bound to say that the hon. Gentleman who moved the reduction was thoroughly justified. There was a great possibility of economy in men and units; and if the right hon. Gentleman had obtained the reduction he had at heart he would only be too glad to inform the Committee. Under the circumstances he did not see why this large sum should be voted without offering any resistance to it.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid he was not at all sure in his mind whether the British soldier in South Africa was doing police work. The Secretary of State said it was offensive to say that. No offence was intended. How often were the troops called in? Were they called in so often as to make the condition normal? The constabulary had been reduced from 10,000 to 6,000. Ten thousand was not too many from what they heard of the state of affairs on the Rand; and it appeared as if the soldiers were being called in to make up the deficiency in the police which the Rand magnates would not pay for.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERasked the right hon. Gentleman how many troops there were on the Rand.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid he was not Secretary of State for War. The constabulary had been reduced and the troops had to be called in more frequently than before. That was for the purpose of economy and was a scandal. It was bad enough to have the shadow of the compounds falling across the bones of dead British soldiers on the veldt, but it was worse to have other British soldiers doing this dirty work because it was cheap.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Will the hon. Member tell me whether there are any British soldiers on the Rand?
  *DR. MACNAMARA: Certainly.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: He is aware that there are?
  *DR. MACNAMARA: Certainly.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No, Sir; he is wrong.
  *DR. MACNAMARA: Are there any British soldiers in Pretoria?
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERassented.
  *DR. MACNAMARAsaid that the constabulary had been reduced for purposes of economy. As the son of a private soldier himself, he protested against British soldiers being called on to do this dirty work on the cheap. The private soldier

  251
  held the view—perhaps he could not express it—that when he fixed his bayonet it was on behalf of a latter day covenant to hang in the skies the Union Jack, assuring to all who lived under it Justice and Freedom. Destroy this undefined ideal and you destroyed the British Army itself. He had heard nothing more humiliating in the House for a long time than the statement that British soldiers were being called on for I this dirty and distasteful work because it was cheaper for the Rand magnates, who would not now pay what they had to pay before the war.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERhoped that the hon. Gentleman would get some strong assurance from the Secretary of State upon this matter. Coming back to the general question, there were two points to which the right hon. Gentleman had not replied to which an answer was required. One was the suggestion that the money that was to pay for this was to come from the sale of remounts and stores purchased for the South African War. These stores were paid for by money which went on to the National Debt, and the produce of the sales was now to be used to make this year's Estimates less. But there was a far more important point from an economic point of view, which was that in his statement the Secretary of State had disowned the reduction of the Army, and, to a great extent, all the economic reforms promised in the previous year. The Committee was then told that the Army was to be reduced by fourteen battalions, and the right hon. Gentleman obtained a great deal of support on account of the promises made. That night the Financial Secretary had stated there could be no question of doing away with the fourteen battalions until the other part of the scheme—the destruction of the Militia, which nine-tenths of the people were against—was carried out. That statement would put the Estimates on a different footing entirely, and those who wished for economy would have to vote against every Estimate introduced by the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. AINSWORTHsaid he thought they were entitled to some statement as to what the Government's South African policy was in regard to
  252
  this matter. The duties performed by our soldiers in South Africa were most distasteful, and would not be necessary if responsible Government was given to the Transvaal and Orange Colony.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: This is not relevant to this item, and should come in on the discussion of the Colonial Estimates.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEasked whether our soldiers in South Africa were only called upon when anything like a riot took place or were they engaged in police patrolling? Were they there to garrison the country, or to act as police? He thought there should be a definite statement from the right hon. Gentleman upon this question.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTONsaid he had great hopes of the thorough reorganisation and reform of our Army after the speech last session of the right hon. Gentleman, and was disposed to give the right hon. Gentleman every possible support to further the scheme he then put before the House, but it was most disappointing that the right hon. Gentleman should now throw over entirely the great scheme of last year. He then appeared as a true economist, and promised great reductions in expenditure, and at the same time to give us a more efficient fighting machine. He pointed out that the annual expenditure on the Army was now ten millions sterling more than it had been before the South African War. That was a most lamentable state of things at a time when the country was suffering in some directions from industrial depression, and when the Government were unable to tackle the question of the unemployed and deal with it in a practical fashion. He submitted that it was their duty, when face to face with such a social situation in the country, to insist upon reductions in the expenditure upon the Army. Therefore he strongly supported this Motion.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he thought he was entitled to a reply to the question which he had put to the Secretary for War.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that some of these questions would be more properly addressed to the Secretary for the Colonies. He was quite certain that the military in South Africa were performing no duties outside the King's Regulations.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid he owed the right hon. Gentleman a word of explanation as to something which he had said earlier in the evening about the employment of the military in the mines. He had been informed of two cases in which soldiers were employed to put down disturbances caused by the Chinese in the mines. The first occasion was in the Geduld Mine on October 17th last, and his information was that the military had been called in, that five Chinamen were wounded and seventy arrested. The other case was in connection with the New Kleinfontein Mine, where he was informed that the military charged with fixed bayonets, and it was only with difficulty that peace was restored. It was quite possible that his informant mistook mounted police for military, but the operations were obviously of a military nature. Of course he accepted the right hon. Gentleman's word, but he asked him to make further inquiry into the matter.
  * MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he would make the inquiry suggested. It was a misapprehension on the part of the hon. Member to think that the military had been employed for private purposes or to forward private enterprises. If the
  troops were employed in the cases mentioned, they were called out for the public purpose of putting down a riot, and that would occur in any country.
  DR. MACNAMARAasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would inquire as to the extent to which it had been necessary to call out the troops for the assistance of the civil power in South Africa during the past six months.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that question should be addressed to the Colonial Secretary.
  SIR ROBERT REIDasked to what extent the troops had been called out in consequence of the reduction in the constabulary.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERreplied that he was not aware. The troops kept in South Africa were in accordance with the requisition of the officer in command in South Africa, and were such as were deemed necessary for military purposes.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked whether it was within the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman that soldiers were employed in the mines doing the ordinary duties of police-constables.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No, Sir.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 190; Noes, 221. (Division List No. 19.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Delany, William

  Allen, Charles P.

  Caldwell, James

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay(Galway)

  Asquith, Bt. Hn. HerbertHenry

  Cameron, Robert

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Austin, Sir John

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Doogan, P. C.

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Cawley, Frederick

  Duffy, William J.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Benn, John Williams

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Dunn, Sir William

  Boland, John

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Edwards, Frank

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Elibank, Master of

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Ellice,CaptE C(S Andrw'sBghs.

  Brigg, John

  Crean, Eugene

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Cremer, William Randal

  Emmott, Alfred

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Crombie, John William

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Bryce, Rt. Hn. James

  Crooks, William

  Evans, SirFrancis H.(Maidstone

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Cullinan, J.

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Burns, John

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Ffrench, Peter

  Field, William

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland

  Flynn, James Christopher

  M'Crae, George

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Shackleton, David James

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Gilhooly, James

  M'Kean, John

  Sheehy, David

  Gladstone,Rt Hn Herbert John

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick)

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Mooney, John J.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Hammond, John

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Spencer,Rt. Hn C. R.(Northants

  Harcourt, Lewis

  Murphy, John

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydvil

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Harwood, George

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

  Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

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

  Tennant, Harold John

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Higham, John Sharpe

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

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

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

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Tillett, Louis John

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Tomkinson, James

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Dowd, John

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  O'Malley, William

  Wallace, Robert

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  O'Mara, James

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Johnson, John

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  O'Shee, James John

  Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney

  Joyce, Michael

  Palmer, Sir Charles M.(Durham)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Parrott, William

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W

  Partington, Oswald

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Kitson, Sir James

  Perks, Robert William

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Labouchere, Henry

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Wills, Arthur Walters (NDorset

  Lambert, George

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  Rea, Russell

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Reddy, M.

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.

  Levy, Maurice

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

  Woodhouse. Sir JT (Huddersf d

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Young, Samuel

  Lloyd-George, David

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Lough, Thomas

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Lundon, W.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Roche, John

  Captain Norton and Mr.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Ainsworth.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Runciman, Walter

  NOES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bull, William James

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A (Glasgow

  Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ.

  Denny, Colonel

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tower Hamlets.

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A (Wore.

  Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Chapman, Edward

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Bill, Charles

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Bingham, Lord

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r

  Bond, Edward

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Finch, Rt, Hon. George H.

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ss B'ghs

  256

  257

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lawson, John Grant (YorksNR

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Fison, Frederick William

  Lee, Arthur H.( Hants, Fareham

  Renwick, George

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Lees, Sir Elliott ( Birkenhead)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Legge, Col. Hn. Heneage

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Forster, Henry William

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Garfit, William

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter ( Bristol, S

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Lowe, Francis William

  Samuel, Sir Harry S (Limehouse

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. ( Elgin & Nairn

  Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Lucas, Col. Francis (L'owestoft

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(Tr'H'mlets

  Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Maconochie, A. W.

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

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Spear, John Ward

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Stanley, Hon Arthur(Ormskirk

  Hain, Edward

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lanes.)

  Hall, Edward Harshall

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Maxwell, W. JH (Dumfriesshire

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Hamilton, Mar. of (L'nd'nderry

  Milvain, Thomas

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

  Heath, Sir James (Starfords, N W

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Tuff, Charles

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Mount, William Arthur

  Turnour, Viscount

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H

  Horner, Frederick William

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Houldsworth, Sir Win. Henry

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

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

  Hoult, Joseph

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

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

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Howard,John (Kent,Faversham

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Percy, Earl

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Hunt. Rowland

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Willougnby de Eresby, Lord

  Hutton, John (Yorks. N.R.)

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

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

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Purvis, Robert

  Wylie, Alexander

  Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

  Pym. C. Guy

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Rankin, Sir James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

  Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. McKENNAmoved a reduction of £100 on Item D, "Army Deferred Pay" revised Estimate, £146,000. He thought the Committee would agree that this was a case in which a reduction should be made. Deferred pay, as he understood, had been abolished, but of course there were still persons on the deferred pay system. What the Committee would expect in such a case was that the original Estimate would show the exact amount for which we had become liable. The Financial Secretary knew
  258
  the number of men at the beginning of the year who would come upon him for deferred pay. Such a large divergence as 15 per cent, between the original Estimate and the revised Estimate showed that the original Estimate was not drawn up with care. The House of Commons had deprecated again and again the system of introducing Supplementary Estimates upon matters which ought to have been properly estimated at the beginning of the year. The Committee were justified in making a protest against what on the face of it was carelessness in getting up the Vote.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item, Vote 1, Sub-head D (Army Deferred Pay) be reduced by £100."—(Mr. McKenna.)
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid the divergence between the Estimates was only 7 per cent. It would be very hard upon the soldiers if the Committee were to adopt the Amendment, because the result would be that the men who were entitled to certain sums would not be able to receive them. It was an undoubted fact that the first thing we ought to do was to keep good faith with the people who enlisted in the Army. The nation had made a bargain with the private soldiers and it ought to be implemented. He should like to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether it was correct that he had made certain alterations with regard to deferred pay.
  And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

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

  ARMY (SUPPLEMENTARY) ESTIMATE, 1904–5 (SOMALILAND).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, ''That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £550,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, for Additional Expenditure in respect of the following Army Services, viz.:—

  £

  vote

  1.

  Pay, etc., of the Army

  985,000

  Vote

  2.

  Medical Establishments, Pay, etc.

  21,000

  Vote

  6.

  Transport and Remounts

  265,000

  260

  Vote

  7.

  Provisions, Forage and other Supplies

  260,000

  Vote

  12.

  Miscellaneous Effective Services

  2,000

  Vote

  14.

  Retried Pay, Half-Pay, and other non effective charges for Officers etc.

  1,000

  Vote

  15.

  Pensions and other non effective charges for Warrant Officers, Non Commissioned Officers Men, and other

  2,000

  1,536,000

  Less Surpluses on other Votes

  386,000

  1,150,000

  Deduct Excess Appropriations in Aid

  600,000

  £550,000"

  Whereupon Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item, Vote 1, Sub-head D (Army Deferred Pay) be reduced by £100."—(Mr. McKenna.)
  CAPTAIN JESSELexplained that there used to be a system in the Army under which a man when he left the colours received a large sum of money which he had accumulated at the rate of 2d. a day. He did not think the system was a good one, because, although the idea was to provide the recipient with capital upon which to start civilian life, it very seldom happened that it was devoted to that purpose. It was more generally squandered in a very short time. The system, however, was retained in order to persuade men to join the Reserve. It was necessary to have a big Reserve. He did not, however, think that this system of giving a lump sum to the men when they left the Army was a good one, and he would like to see it done away with, and the Army placed on the same level in this matter as the Navy, which had a system whereby the deferred pay of the men was given in the form of a pension. He sincerely hoped this suggestion would meet with the approval of the right hon. Gentleman, as in the opinion of many of the officers this system was neither in the interest of the service nor of the men, and could not be justified.
  *COLONEL WELBYsaid the debate which had taken place about this item and the reduction which had been moved and the whole of the discussion of that afternoon, all went to show that the new system of presenting the Estimate, although it might make clear the item with which it was connected, was not very clearly understood by hon. Members of this House. He had spent all the morning trying to understand this Supplementary Vote, and until he had received that enlightenment, which was always so freely conceded by hon. Members on both sides of the House, he had failed to understand the system upon which the Estimate had been presented to the Committee. The Government had made a reduction of £104,000 last year on this item of deferred pay, and if there was an increase of £10,000 this year it was a small matter.
  At this point Mr. J. W. LOWTHER left the Chair, which was taken by Mr. PRETYMAN. There were immediately cries of "Chair, Chair" from the OPPOSITION.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Captain Pretyman, may I ask you, are you a Deputy-Chairman, and have you authority to take the Chair?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAX,: The Chairman has asked me to take the Chair for one moment in his temporary absence.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: You are not a Deputy-Chairman. [OPPOSITION cries of "Chair."] What right have you there?
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURY: Is it not a well-known practice of the House that any Member can take the Chair by request of the Chairman? [OPPOSITION cries of "No."]
  MR. MACVEAGH: Is there any rule by which a Member of the Government shall take the chair during a sitting of this House?
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: You are a Minister of the Crown. [Cries of "Leave the Chair."]
  MR, LLOYD-GEORGE,who was received with Opposition cheers, rose to a point of order, but at this juncture Mr. J. W. LOWTHER returned and again took the Chair.
  MR. J. F. HOPEUpon a point of order, during your absence, Sir, a question was raised as to whether you had invited the hon. Gentleman to take the Chair.
  MR. McKENNA: That is not a point or order. There is nothing before the House.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I can easily explain the reason. For a moment I invited the gentleman who was nearest to the Chair to occupy it.
  MR. McKENNA: Is there any precedent for asking a Minister of the Crown?
  *THE CHAIRMAN: It has generally on similar occasions been taken, I think, by a junior member of the Ministry.
  *COLONEL WELBYsaid he entirely agreed with what the hon. Member who had last spoken had said with regard to the deferred pay doing a great deal of harm to the Army. Time after time he had known men of good character who wanted to serve in the Army but who left when they had a certain amount of deferred pay due to them simply because they wanted to go out on the spree. He thought the whole system had been done away with long ago, and he should like to know if, and why, it was reinstated.
  *COLONEL LEGGEconfessed that he had some difficulty in understanding these Estimates. So far as he could make out the War Office last year had underestimated the sum required for the deferred pay of the Army, and had since used certain windfalls in the shape of appropriations-in-aid to cover the loss. The hon. Member opposite had moved a reduction in the Vote for deferred pay; the object of his doing so was difficult to appreciate. He could not understand any hon. Member desiring to take away from a soldier the

  263
  money which he had earned. Another thing he could not understand was why this system of deferred pay was still in force. It was introduced with the idea that it would assist in recruiting, and that at the end of his service the soldier would receive a substantial sum to help him to start in civil life. The experiment was not very successful because the soldier found himself in possession of a considerable sum, which he generally got rid of in a very short time, and the object for which the money was really saved, namely, to enable the soldier to tide over the time between his leaving the Army and getting employment, was not served. A plan was then adopted where by a soldier's money was sent to his home for him, instead of being placed in his hands, and thus subjecting him to the temptation of being led away by bad characters outside the barracks. That scheme did not have a much better effect. There was now a different scheme altogether, and he certainly thought that the Committee should have some explanation from the Secretary of State as to why this item of deferred pay appeared on the Estimates year after year, and why this year he should have asked for an increased amount. He had no desire to detain the Committee, but he was an old soldier himself, and he thought that on military questions it was desirable that old soldiers thould be heard.
  *MR. RENWICKsaid he was not sure that he understood the argument of the hon. Member who moved the reduction of the Vote; but it appeared to him it meant the repudiation of the liability of the country to pay £10,000 of deferred pay which was owing to the soldiers in India. He could not understand how those hon. Members opposite who shortly expected to appeal to the country could make such an attempt to deprive our unfortunate soldiers of the pay due to them. It might be that the system of deferred pay was bad for the Army, but that was not a question they had anything to do with that evening. He could imagine any Member moving the reduction of the Vote by £100 which provided arms, horses, or even clothing for the soldiers, because the hon. Member might imagine
  264
  that the soldiers could do with so much less of these, provided they did not go too far in reducing the clothing. He insisted that if this deferred pay to the soldiers was refused it would at once increase the number of unemployed. Complaint had been made by hon. Gentlemen on the other side as to a mistake of £10,000 in the Indian accounts. When they remembered that the different depots in India were, many of them, hundreds and even thousands of miles apart, it was not surprising that some of the deferred pay accounts had not been made up owing to the carelessness of some officers. They did not expect the highest efficiency from some officers—[Loud OPPOSITION cries of "Name"]—he meant that they did not look for the highest state of efficiency in regard to accounts from some officers. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh, oh!"] For the reasons he had mentioned he should certainly vote against the reduction, and he hoped the whole House, would do so.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSONsaid that there was one observation of his hon. friend who had just sat down that appeared to him to have been misunderstood. His hon. friend did not say that they should not look to officers for correct accounts, as one would suppose from the derisive cheers of hon. Gentlemen opposite, at any rate his hon. friend did not mean that the accounts were not correct in themselves. What he meant was that, after all, an officer was not a booking clerk; although from what he had heard from friends of his own who were colonels in the Army they were little better than booking clerks, considering the number of accounts they had to keep. [An HON. MEMBER on the IRISH BENCHES: Sit down; your majority has arrived now.] Item D of the Vote, "Army Deferred Pay," really consisted of two items, one of £90,000 for the British establishment, and the other of £43,000 for the Indian establishment. The Army Service Corps, the Royal Medical Corps, and the Colonial and Indian Stores Department were not included in the original Estimates, and therefore it was exceedingly likely that the £10,000 mistake was due to the Indian establishment and not

  265
  to the English officials. He did not think it was the wisest way to recoup the soldiers for depriving them of deferred pay by increasing their daily pay. He had known soldiers who had come home with money in their pockets and had immediately wasted it upon the spot. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh, oh!"] He did not say that they had absolutely squandered it, but had invested it at once in some small business without careful inquiry. While he thought that the deferred pay system was not a good one, yet when it was abolished it would have been much better to have given something in the way not of an old-age pension, but of a small pension after the term of service had ended. An obviously capital way of getting out of the difficulty in regard to recruiting for the Army was to increase the pensions. [At this point the right hon. Gentleman he Secretary of State for War entered the Chamber.] He was glad that his right hon. friend had come in and he would conclude.
  COLONEL PILKINGTONsaid he was rather surprised that derogatory remarks had been made about officers who did not understand the principles of arithmetic.
  MR. O'MARAsaid he could not see what the principles of arithmetic had to do with this Vote.
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid that the hon. Member was replying to some aspersions which had been cast on certain officers.
  COLONEL PILKINGTONsaid that as regarded this mistake of £10,000 he had heard of a Chancellor of the Exchequer who had suddenly found himself placed
  in that high position, and who, when certain statistics in decimals were put before him by his officials, asked what the black dots meant. [OPPOSITION cries of "Name."] Hon. Gentlemen opposite were so intelligent that he should have thought they would have been in the position of Joseph when asked by Pharoah to interpret his dream. If hon. Gentlemen opposite, who were supposed to have a monopoly of wisdom, did not know who that Chancellor of the Exchequer was they were not worthy to sit on those benches.
  *THE CHAIRMANinvited the hon. and gallant Member to confine himself to the question before the Committee.
  COLONEL PILKINGTONsaid he was only trying to defend the officers who had been attacked, and to show that they were not so very far behind in their arithmetic. As to deferred pay, he thought it was one of the very best things ever invented. Why should hon. Members opposite try to rob the soldiers of their hard-earned wages? They had served their country well and faithfully while hon. Gentlemen opposite refused to go out to the Boer War. Was it not absurd, considering the existing condition of unemployment, and after all that had been said about employers of labour not engaging old soldiers, to attempt to deprive them of their deferred pay? They ought to have every chance in life after the sacrifices they had made, and why, then, rob them of their deferred pay?
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 153; Noes, 179. (Division List No. 20.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Burns, John

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Allen, Charles P.

  Caldwell, James

  Delany, William

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Cameron, Robert

  Devlin, Charles Ramsay(Galw'y

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Boland, John

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Doogan, P. C.

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Charming, Francis Allston

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Brigg, John

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Duffy, William J.

  Bright, Allen Heywood

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Emmott, Alfred

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Crean, Eugene

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Crooks, William

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Cullinan, J.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lundon, W.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Roche, John

  Ffrench, Peter

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Runciman, Walter

  Flynn, James Christopher

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  M'Crae, George

  Shackleton, David James

  Gilhooly, James

  M, Fadden, Edward

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Gladstone, Rt.Hn Herbert John;

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  M'Kean, John

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Hammond, John

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Spencer, Rt.Hn.CR.(Northants

  Harcourt, Lewis

  Mooney, Arthur Basil

  Sullivan, Donal

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  Mooney, John J.

  Taylor, Theodore C.(Ratcliffe)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Murphy, John

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Tillett, Louis John

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

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Tomkinson, James

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Brien, Kendal (T'pper'ry Mid

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

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

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Johnson, John

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Wason, JohnCathcart(Orkney)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Dowd, John

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W

  O'Malley, William

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Mara, James

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Kitson, Sir James

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Labouchere, Henry

  Partington, Oswald

  Wills, Arthur Walters (N Dorset

  Lambert, George

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Woodhouse, Sir JT(Huddersf'd

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Young, Samuel

  Leese, SirJosephF.(Accrington

  Reddy, M.

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Levy, Maurice

  Reid, Sir R.Threshie(Dumfries

  M'Kenna and Mr. Trevelyan.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Lloyd-George, David

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  NOES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Godson,Sir AugustusFrederick

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Gordon,Hn.J.E.(Elgin & Nairn)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Arnold-Forster, Rt.Hn.Hugh O.

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Davies,Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

  Greene, Henry D (Shrewsbury)

  Aubrey-Fletcher,Rt.Hon.Sir H

  Denny, Colonel

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Dewar,SirT.R.(Tower Hamlets

  Harnilton,Marq.of(L'nd'nderry

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Balcarres, Lord

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Balfour,Rt. Hon.A.J.(Manch'r

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Balfour,RtHn GeraldW.(Leeds

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Heath.Sir James(Staffords. NW

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Dorington, Rt. Hon.Sir JohnE.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Doughty, Sir George

  Helder, Augustus

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Henderson,Sir A.(Stafford, W.)

  Bill, Charles

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Bingham, Lord

  Dyke,Rt.Hon.Sir William Hart

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Fardell Sir T. George

  Hope, J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Fergusson,Rt.Hn.SirJ(Manch'r

  Horner, Frederick William

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Hoult, Joseph

  Bull, William James

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Campbell, J.H.M.(Dublin Univ.

  Finlay,SirR.B(Inv'rn'ssB'ghs

  Howard, John(Kent,Faversham

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Hozier,Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Hunt, Rowland

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

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

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Kenyon-Slaney,Rt.Hn.Col. W.

  Chapman, Edward

  Forster, Henry William

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Foster,PhilipS.(Warwick, S.W.

  Knowles, Sir Lees

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

  Gardner, Ernest

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  268

  269

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Stanley,Hon.Arthur (Ormskirk

  Lawson,JohnGrant(Yorks.N R

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Stanley,Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.)

  Lee,Arthur H(Hants.,Fareham

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Stewart,Sir Mark J.M'Taggart

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Peel,Hn. Wm.Robert Wellesley

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Leveson-Gower,FrederickN.S.

  Percy, Earl

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Long,Col.Charles W.(Evesham

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Tuff, Charles

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

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Lowe, Francis William

  Purvis, Robert

  Tumour, Viscount

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Pym, C. Guy

  Valentia, Viscount

  Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth

  Rankin, Sir James

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Rasch, Sir Frederick Carne

  Walrond,Rt.Hn.Sir William H.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

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

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Renwick, George

  Welby, Sir Charles GE. (Notts.)

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Maxwell,W.JH(Dumfriesshire

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Milner, Rt.Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

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

  Milvain, Thomas

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

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

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants

  Samuel, Sir Harry S(Limehouse

  Wylie, Alexander

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

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

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Mount, William Arthur

  Spear, John Ward

  Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEmoved to report Progress. He did so, he said, in order to call attention to the spectacle—as he thought, the very disgraceful spectacle—which the House of Commons had witnessed during the last hour, and for which he was prepared to suggest and to prove that the Government was primarily responsible. [An HON. MEMBER: Where is the Prime Minister?] What had been the course of events that day? This was the first working day of the session and they were engaged on the Supplementary Estimates. The Financial Secretary to the War Office, in introducing them, delivered a very lengthy speech, which was contrary to precedent, for a very obvious reason. [Cheers and MINISTERIAL cries of "No."] It was perfectly palpable that he went out of his way to expand every little detail. [The PRIME MINISTER entered the House.] He was very glad to see that in a matter which pertained to the Estimates they had for the first time the presence of the First Lord of the Treasury. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh."] They were entitled when Supply was before the House to ask that the chief official of the Treasury should be present and more
  270
  especially when things were going on which the Prime Minister knew in every detail, he being primarily the man to whom the dignity and honour of the House was charged. But he was very diplomatically absent. What was the course taken? The Financial Secretary to the War Office made a lengthy appeal to them for short speeches. An hon. friend of his moved an Amendment in a very brief speech, but the debate was prolonged for something like an hour by hon. Members opposite, who had really no criticisms to offer. [Cheers and cries of "Oh!] If they had why did they not support them in the Lobby? The debate was prolonged for something like an hour. The Chief Whip of the Government kept ostentatiously walking into the House and passing the word round. He was in command of the reserves and organised all this obstruction to the work of the House of Commons. At seven o'clock there was a division [Several HON. MEMBERS: A quarter past], and immediately afterwards a reduction was moved. That division was taken after a debate, which he did not think anybody would say was a prolonged one, upon an important matter involving the expenditure of £400,000. The Opposition were prepared to take

  271
  a division before half-past seven, but the hon. Member for Peckham—he agreed that the hon. Baronet had earned the gratitude of hon. Members opposite; he was the colonel of the Old Guard—the hon. Member talked the Motion out. He did not think the hon. Baronet would deny that suggestion. Immediately after dinner the same process began again. The test of the sincerity of the utterances of hon. Members opposite was that the Secretary for War never got up to answer them because he knew they were not addressed in good faith. [Cheers and MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh."] The object was not to get an answer, but simply to waste time. The Prime Minister knew perfectly well that the House of Commons was absolutely tired of him and his Ministry. That night they all came down for the purpose of these skirmishes as a sort of detaining force until the rest of the army came up. It was true that they came up in rather larger numbers that night than usual. There were three vacanciesin the Ministry, and they were looking for deferred pay. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Divide."] He submitted that this was humiliating to the House of Commons, and that to carry on proceedings such as those they had witnessed during the past hour was inflicting a deep blow on its dignity and efficiency, and he ventured to move to report Progress in order to call attention to it.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Lloyd-George).
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,Sir, I understand that the hon. Gentleman has risen with a double motive. One is to safeguard the dignity of the House, and the other is to expedite business. I cannot say that in either of those most laudable objects he appears to me to have attained any great success. The hon. Gentleman, in the course of his speech, levelled a taunt at this side of the House which I certainly thought unworthy of him, and which I did not think added to the dignity of the House. He told the House in the earlier portion of his oration that the
  272
  House was tired both of me and of the Government. That may be so. There are very simple methods of establishing the fact, and if we be a nuisance the nuisance is easily abated. The hon. Gentleman suggested that it is not with the view of supporting the Government on principle that my hon. friends have come down, but with some desire for office—that it was some desire to fill the vacant places in the Government that animated the Gentlemen whom I see around me. I do not think it is wise that taunts of this sort should be put forward across the floor of the House. There may be, I am told by the vast school of prophets I see opposite to me, an immediate chance of another Government being formed other than the one sitting on this bench. There will be more than three places to dispose of when that time comes, and I do not know whether we are to follow the example set by the hon. Gentleman and attribute any of the feverish activity we see on that side to a desire to form part of another Ministry. For my part, I do not think that these questions are very profitable matters for discussion, and I should certainly not have named them had the hon. Gentleman not thought fit to begin that particular game of repartee in which I am always very pleased to meet him, although I do not pretend to compete with equal strength.
  The hon. Gentleman gave a picture of this afternoon's and evening's proceedings which my friends near me tell me does not correspond with the facts; and he reproaches me with not having been here myself to be an eye-witness and to bear first-hand testimony to the matters in debate. There are many younger and less experienced Members than he, but all may know, or ought to know, that it is quite impossible for the First Lord of the Treasury to sit here during all the debates in Supply. It is neither customary, nor is it possible. Nor could the business of the country be carried on if that were the practice. I make not the smallest apology for not having been here during all the afternoon; indeed, if I am to accept the hon. Gentleman's testimony to the value of the speeches delivered on this side of the House, and the testimony of my hon. friends to the value of the

  273
  speeches delivered on that side, I do not think I can have lost much by ray non-attendance. What is the real gravamen of the charge of the hon. Gentleman? He wraps it up in a great many fine phrases about the dignity of the House. I would put it in two words. Hon. Gentlemen opposite wanted to have a snap division. Now, Sir, I am not quarrelling with the benevolent desire of the hon. Gentleman opposite to have a snap division. Doubtless he thinks he would thereby reap much benefit for himself and his Party. He is at liberty to pursue legitimate ends by means not contrary to the Rules and Orders of the House; but if he is at liberty to aim at getting a snap division, we are at least as much at liberty to do what we can to prevent it. And I will tell the House why. After all, the object of taking a division at all is to obtain the best reflection you can of the opinions of the representatives of the people—the Members of this House. How is that best attained? By so manœuvring as to obtain a snap division, or by taking a division when the House of Commons is comparatively full? The question has only to be put to beanswered. I hope the hon. Gentleman, whose Parliamentary talents I admire, will not suppose I am attacking him for endeavouring to make use of every device which the Rules of the House permit to embarrass those to whom he is opposed. My Parliamentary career is now rather a long one, and I certainly am not going to stand up and say I have never adopted the same course, and attempted to reap what small and petty advantages can be obtained by such an expedient. But to get up as the hon. Member has done, and in tones of thunderous indignation to indicate that the constitution of the House is being shattered and the dignity of its proceedings destroyed simply because we meet his manœuvre by another, and, I venture to say, a more legitimate one, is—I do not wish to be offensive—playing with words. It is to indulge in a speech of parade, the true meaning of which every one in this House understands. It is not intended to convince hon. Members, and if it is to be consumed at all it is by other audiences elsewhere. I am bound to say this Motion to report Progress is exceedingly ill-timed, and no good purpose is served
  274
  by it. The hon. Gentleman has mourned over the waste of time that has already taken place upon what he rather unkindly calls the first working day of the session, and I hope he will now support the Government in the attempt to carry on business.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman has excused himself for not being present during the last hour, and I make the admission at once that it is not to be expected that the Prime Minister will always be in his place; but I think the Prime Minister will admit on his part that we have never had a Leader of the House who has so habitually absented himself during our proceedings. [Cries of "Oh, oh!" "No," "Hear, hear!" and "Withdraw."] As an instance, I will go no further back than yesterday. We then had an Amendment to the Address brought forward, not directed against any mere departmental administration with which the Minister for the Department might deal, but which was an arraignment of the general financial policy of the Government, and throughout that debate, from first to last, the right hon. Gentleman was only here for a few minutes while the Chancellor of the Exchequer was speaking.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There were very good reasons for my absence yesterday, but, in addition to the claims of public business, it was understood that by arrangement the debate should close at half-past seven o'clock. I consulted with the Minister whose particular business it was—the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and it was not considered necessary that two Ministers should address the House; but had the debate extended through the evening I would have taken my part in it
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I did not refer to the right hon. Gentleman not speaking in the debate; I referred to the fact of his being absent. He did not listen to one of the speeches made against the financial policy of his Government. The right hon. Gentleman says he has lost nothing by his absence this evening. Well, he has lost one thing, because I am quite sure if

  275
  he had been present he would not have made the speech he has just now made. He attributes to us a manœuvre. I can only say for my part—and I ought to know something about the business of the House—that if there was a manœuvre I had no knowledge whatever of it. But I leave the right hon. Gentleman the benefit of his imputed manœuvre, and ask what is the business of the Government? It is to have their supporters here at the hours they have themselves fixed, and then they would be proof against any manœuvre. But what we saw was Member after Member from that side of the House get up and unblushingly occupy time without any attempt at concealment. There was no concealment about it, every one of them spoke with his tongue in his cheek, and I am afraid some of them must have bitten their tongues in the process. It was the business of the supporters of the Government to be here in sufficient numbers. The Amendment which was before us was talked out by supporters of the Government. There might have been a division at half-past seven, I am told—I was away myself, which in itself shows the absence of any manœuvre—there might have been a division if it had not been for the action of the hon. Member for Peckham. The same course was pursued at nine o'clock and continued until ten minutes to ten. The Government will be appealing to us by-and-by for some indulgence on account of pressure of time for proceeding with their business, and now, by flagrant neglect of their duty and by pushing to an indecent extreme the forms of the House, they have wasted nearly an hour, and they have done this in an evident and exuberantly willing manner, their supporters seeming to think it was a great joke to play these tricks with time. The present Motion is a proper one, and I hope it will be carried to a division.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid as he was present he wished to put on record his impression of the debate the right hon. Gentleman did not hear.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I cannot say I was here the whole time. I was not here until shortly after nine.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he would remind the House what the debate had been. At twenty minutes past seven an Amendment was moved for the purpose of depriving the soldiers of £10,000 worth of the property they had earned. That money was as much the soldiers' property as anything hon. Gentlemen opposite had in their pockets was their property. If there was an illegitimate proceeding in the House that night it was moving an Amendment which, on the face of it, was illusory and absurd. As to the absence or presence of the Prime Minister, if the time ever came when the Leader of the Opposition might be able to set them an example, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would stick to the rule he had laid down and always be present during all the debates. He could not imagine a greater sustenance to the Party to which he (the speaker) belonged than to hear a bad case so ill-sustained as the right hon. Gentleman had that night sustained the case of the Opposition.
  MR. McKENNAsaid that he also had been present throughout the debate, and it was his Amendment upon which the discussion had arisen. The right hon. Gentleman had, unintentionally, grossly misdescribed that Amendment, which was not one to deprive the soldier of £10,000. It was three times read from the Chair to be a reduction of £100. [Cries of, "Withdraw."] Oh, they would never withdraw. That Amendment was moved, not on the ground of desiring to withdraw from any soldier any deferred pay, but, as he explained in moving, and as the right hon. Gentleman was aware, because no such error should have been made in the accounts as would require an additional Estimate of £10,000. It was on that account he moved a reduction so small that it would not have affected the pay of a single soldier by a farthing. He could assure the Prime Minister that the picture drawn of the debate by the mover of the adjournment was strictly accurate; he would go further and say that the Prime Minister knew it was correct, otherwise why did the right hon. Gentleman defend in

  277
  the, second half of his speech what he described as a manœuvre on the part of his followers? There had been no manœuvre to get a snap division. But he would tell the right hon. Gentleman what there had been. There had been an earnest desire on the part of hon. Members on his side to attend to the business of the House. There had been an earnest desire also on the part of the right hon. Gentleman's Whips to make his followers attend to the business of the House, but they had refused to do so. They were in a state of rebellion which the right hon. Gentleman considered a condition precedent to
  an appeal to the country, and on the first working day of the session the House had had an example of how a worn-out. Government had lost all authority, not only in the country, but amongst their own followers. If the right hon. Gentleman retained any regard for the reputation and honour of the House he would not endeavour to protract a struggle which must inevitably end in defeat.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:— Ayes, 167; Noes, 191. (Division List No. 21.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William(Cork. N. E.)

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Gilhooly, James

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Allen, Charles P.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. HerbertJohn

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Brien, Patrick(Kilkenny)

  Bell, Richard

  Hammond, John

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

  Boland, John

  Harcourt, Lewis

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Brigg, John

  Harwood, George

  O'Dowd, John

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Kelly, James (RoscommonN

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  O'Malley, William

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  O'Mara, James

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Partington, Oswald

  Burns, John

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

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Caldwell, James

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk

  Rea, Russell

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Johnson, John

  Reddy, M.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Jones Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Joyce, Michael

  Reid, Sir R.Threshie(Dumfries

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Kilbride, Denis

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Crean, Eugene

  Kitson, Sir James

  Roche, John

  Crooks, William

  Labouchere, Henry

  Rose, Charles Day

  Cullinan, J.

  Lambert, George

  Runciman, Walter

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid(Cornwall)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Delany, William

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Shackleton, David James

  Devlin, C. R. (Galway)

  Leese, SirJosephF. (Accrington

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Sheehy, David

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Levy, Maurice

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)

  Lundon, W.

  Slack, John Bamford

  Duffy. William J.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Ellice, Capt. EC(S. Andrew'sBhs

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Emmott, Alfred

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Spencer, Rt. HnC. R.(Northants

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  M'Crae, George

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Evans, SirFrancisH.(Maidstone

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Farrell, James Patrick

  M'Kean, John

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Thomas, Sir A(Glamorgan, E.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Thomas, DavidAlfred(Merthyr

  Findlay, A. (Lanark, N. E.)

  Mooney, John J.

  Tomkinson, James

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Foster, SirWalter(Derby Co.)

  Murphy, John

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Woodhouse, SirJ T(Huddersf'd

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Young, Samuel

  Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Weir, James Galloway

  Wills, ArthurWalters(N. Dorset

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Mr. Lloyd-George and Mr.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  M'Kenna.

  NOES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Forster, Henry William

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick,SW

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott(Hants.

  ANson, Sir William Reynell

  Gardner, Ernest

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Godson, SirAugustusFrederick

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. HughO.

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Aubrey-Fletcher, RtHn. SirH.

  Goschen. Hon. George Joachim

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Greene, HenryD.(Shrewsbury)

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Balfour, RtHnGeraldW. (Leeds

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Hamilton, Marqof(L'nd'nderry

  Peel, Hn. Wm. RobertWellesley

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Percy, Earl

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Bill, Charles

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Bingham Lord

  Heath, SirJames(Staffords.NW

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Blunde., Colonel Henry

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bond, Edward

  Helder, Augustus

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford. W.)

  Purvis, Robert

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Pym, C. Guy

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Rankin, Sir James

  Bull, William James

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Ratcliffe, R. F.

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ.

  Horner, Frederick William

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hoult, Joseph

  Renwick, George

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Robertson, Herbert(Hackney)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Howard, John(Kent, Faversh'm

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Chamberlain, RtHn. J. A. (Worc.

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Chapman, Edward

  Hozier, Hon. JamesHenryCecil

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Hunt, Rowland

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

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

  Jessel, Captain HerbertMerton

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Collings, RtHon. Jesse

  Kenyon-Slaney, RtHon.Col. W.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Keswick, William

  Samuel, SirHarryS. (Limehouse

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.

  Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)

  Laurie, Lieut-General

  Seton-Karr, SirHenry

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (MileEnd)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

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

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Davenport, William Bromley

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

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

  Davies, SirHoratioD. (Chatham

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Spear, John Ward

  Denny, Colonel

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

  Dewar, SirT. R.(TowerHamlets

  Leveson-Gower. FrederickN.S.

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord(Lancs.)

  Dickinson, RobertEdmond

  Llewellyn. Evan Henry

  Stewart, SirMarkJ. M'Taggart

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lockwood, Lieut-Col.A. R.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Stroyan, John

  Dorington, RtHon. Sir John E.

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Doughty Sir George

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

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Lowe, Francis William

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmo'th

  Tuff, Charles

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Turnour, Viscount

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Valentia, Viscount

  Ferguson, RtHn. SirJ. (Manc'r

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Walrond, RtHn.SirWm. H.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Finlay, SirR. B. (Invern'ssB'ghs

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

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

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Maxwell, W. JH. (Dumfriesshire

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

  Fitzroy, Hon. EdwardAlgernon

  Milner, Rt Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Wharton, Rt. Hn. J. Lloyd

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Milvain, Thomas

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  280

  281

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

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

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Original Question again proposed.
  *SIR A. HAYTERasked for an explanation of the increase of no less than 12 per cent, under Sub-head E. The items were all of a very ordinary character, in regard to which one would have thought approximately correct Estimates could have been made.
  MR. WEIRcomplained of so large an increase in the Estimates. They were supposed to be going in for economy, but here was most extravagant expenditure. As representing a constituency where money was badly needed, he strongly protested against the extra expenditure of £15,150. It was a matter on which he could easily make a fifty minutes speech, but, in deference to the wishes of the Prime Minister, he would simply move the reduction of the Vote by that amount, and ask for an explanation.
  Motion made, and Question proposed. "That Item, Vote 1, Sub-head E (Regimental Allowances and Expenses) be reduced by £15,150."—(Mr. Weir.)
  MR. JOSEPH WALTONsaid that in view of the assurances given by the Secretary of State last year that strenuous efforts would be made to reduce expenditure it was very disappointing to find increases in all these items. This Vote was in respect of matters in regard
  to which one could not help feeling it was perfectly possible to have effected considerable reductions, and the Committee ought to have some fuller explanation of how the increase was made up, and as to why there was any increase at all. The people were over-taxed for the Army; the whole country was groaning under the burden of taxation; and in the face of the financial position of the country it was the duty of the Committee to insist on the fullest examination of every Estimate, whether original or supplemental, with a view to securing reductions wherever possible.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid this Vote was not quite so simple as the right hon. Baronet seemed to think. Many of the items had been in existence only a few years, and the sole basis upon which Estimates could be framed was past experience. The war had created new conditions and new allowances, with the result that the old system of estimating could no longer be relied upon; therefore the War Office had started a new system. All the old landmarks had been swept away, and it would probably be a few years before the Estimates could be framed with perfect accuracy. In this case there had undoubtedly been a serious under-estimate, but it was due to the circumstances he had mentioned.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 164; Noes, 192. (Division List No. 22.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Crooks, William

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Cullinan, J.

  Allen, Charles P.

  Burns, John

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Ambrose, Robert

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Caldwell, James

  Delany, William

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Devlin, Charles Ramsay(Galw'y

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Bell, Richard

  Cawley, Frederick

  Doogan, P. C.

  Boland, John

  Channging, Francis Allston

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Duffy, William J.

  Brigg, John

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Ellice, Capt E C(SAndrw'sBghs

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Crean, Eugene

  Emmott, Alfred

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Leese, Sir Joseph F (Accrington

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Evans,Sir Francis H (Maidstone

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Levy, Maurice

  Roche, John

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rose, Charles Day

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lloyd-George, David

  Runciman, Walter

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Lough, Thomas

  Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lundon, W.

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Findlay, Alexander(Lanark NE

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Shackleton, David James

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Sheehy, David

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Gilhooly, James

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Gladstone, RtHn.HerbertJohn

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Slack, John Bamford

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  M'Kean, John

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Soames Arthur Wellesley

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Spencer, RtHn. C.R(Northants

  Hammond, John

  Mooney, John J.

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Harcourt, Lewis

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Hardie, J Keir (MerthyrTydvil)

  Murphy, John

  Sullivan, Donal

  Harwood, George

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Tenant Harold John

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMid

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

  Henderson Arthur (Durham)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Tomkinson, James

  Higham, John Sharpe

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

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

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

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Dowd, John

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Hutchinson, Dr. CharlesFredk.

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon,N

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  O'Malley, William

  Whiteley, George(York. E. R.)

  Johnson, John

  O'Mara, James

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Whittaker, Thos. Palmer

  Joyce, Michael

  Partington, Oswald

  Wills, A. Walters (Dorset., N.)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Kennedy Vincent P.(Cavan, W.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Woodhouse, Sir JT(Hud'ersfi'ld

  Kilbride, Denis

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Young, Samuel

  Kitson, Sir James

  Rea, Russell

  Labouchere, Henry

  Reckitt, Harold James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  Reddy, M.

  Weir and Captain Norton.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Rickett, J. Compton

  NOES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir WilliamHart

  Allhusen, AugustusHenryEden

  Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Chamberlain, RtHn. J.A(Wore.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn. Hugh O

  Chapman, Edward

  Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J.(Mancr.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. HonSirH.

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

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Finlay, SirR.B(Inv'rn'ssBghs)

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Fitzroy, Hn.Edward Algernon

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r.

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Balfour, RtHnGeraldW(Leeds

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Forster, Henry William

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Davenport, W. Bromley

  Foster, PhilipS(Warwick, S. W.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Bill, Charles

  Denny, Colonel

  Gardner, Ernest

  Bingham, Lord

  Dewar,Sir T.R (Tower Hamlets

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Gordon, Hn. J. E(Elgin & Nairn

  Bond, Edward

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. SirJoseph C.

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

  Bull, William James

  Doughty, Sir George

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Campbell, JH.M.(DublinUniv.

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  284

  285

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Hamilton, Marq.of(L'donderry

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Samuel, Sir HarryS (Limehouse

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Seton-Karr, SirHenry

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Maxwell, WJH(Dumfriesshire

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Heath, SirJames(Staffords.NW

  Milner, Rt. HnSirFrederick G.

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Milvain, Thomas

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Helder, Augustus

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

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

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Spear, John Ward

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Montagu, Hn. J.Scott(Hants.)

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Stewart, SirMark J.M'Taggart

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Hoult, Joseph

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Stroyan, John

  Howard, John(KentFaversh'm

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Hozier, Hn. James HenryCecil

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Tuff, Charles

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt Hn.Col. W.

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Turnour, Viscount

  Keswick, William

  Peel, Hn.Wm.RobertWellesley

  Valentia, Viscount

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Percy, Earl

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. SirWilliamH.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End)

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Welby, Lt, -Col.A.CE.(Taunton

  Lawson,JohnGrant (Yorks.N.R

  Powell, SirFrancis Sharp

  Welby, Sir Charles G.E.(Notts.

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants. Fareham

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. JohnLloyd

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Purvis, Robert

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Pym, C. Guy

  Willoughbyde Eresby, Lord

  Leveson-Gower, FrederickN.S.

  Rankin, Sir James

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

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

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R,

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Loder, Gerald Walter ErsKine

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

  Renwick, George

  Wylie, Alexander

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

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Lowe, Francis William

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Loyd, Archie, Kirkman

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. O'MARApointed out that there was an excess upon this Vote of £25,000 and he wished to move its reduction by £5,000. If the Secretary for War favoured him with a reply he hoped he would not deliberately misinterpret the motives which had led him to make this Motion. This excess might be due to civilians, and he did not move this reduction for the purpose of asking the Committee to repudiate debts which were due to those civilians. Upon a similar Motion the right hon. Gentleman had accused the Opposition of trying to deprive the soldiers of £10,000, but he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would not misinterpret his motives in that way. He moved this Motion because he was convinced that there had been great carelessness in the preparation of these Estimates and in the way in which they had been placed before the House.
  286
  This was by no means the first time that he had risen to protest against the manner in which these Votes had been presented to the House. He was reluctant to move this Motion, because he noticed that some of the money was for the doctors of the Army, but he wished more particularly to know if it were a fact that grooms and officers' servants were paid out of this money. Was it true that the country had to pay for these services. He had no wish to unduly occupy the time of the House, but he wished to have a distinct answer to those questions. Unless he obtained a satisfactory reply he should be obliged to press his Motion to a division. He begged to move.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item, Vote 1, Sub-head I (Wages of Civilians attached to Units, etc.) be reduced by £5,000.—(Mr. O'Mara.)
  MR. JOSEPH WALTONsaid it ought to have been possible to employ soldiers in place of many of the civilians who were engaged in quasi-regimental duties. Instead of spending this money upon civilians he thought it would have been much better expended upon guns and rifles. The Committee ought not to pass this Vote without some satisfactory explanation from the Secretary of State for War as to why this large increase in the expenditure had taken place in time of peace.
  *MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTexplained that the whole cost was accounted for by the fact that in South Africa during the greater part of the year they had had to maintain a very large number, an excessive number, of horses and transport animals. He had done his best to keep down expenditure, but he did not feel justified in insisting upon economy when it was opposed to the requirements of the service. It was felt that in the event of war those transport animals would be required. Of course those animals had to be taken care of by civilian servants, and this expenditure had been incurred mostly for civilian servants, such as grasscutters, labourers, and persons attending to the horses. Soldiers were not employed because the animals were in the Remount Department, in which there was not a sufficient number of soldiers to take charge of them.
  *MR. McCRAEasked for a more detailed explanation.
  *MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: It is the whole of the explanation.
  *MR. McCRAE: Then it is a very poor explanation. They certainly ought to have a more detailed explanation than the mere statement that this expenditure was necessary because the Secretary for War was afraid of a war in the Far East
  MR. MOONEYsaid they had just been told that the state of affairs in the Far East necessitated this large increase in the forces in South Africa. The increase was out of
  288
  all proportion to the original Estimate. The Financial Secretary had told them that it was due to the maintenance of transport animals and fodder, but there would have to be a very large number of horses indeed to account for the great increase. He did not think the explanation given was at all satisfactory.
  MR. LOUGHpressed for some further explanation. The explanation given was a most surprising one, for it was to the effect that the military authorities thought that we were going to drift into war, which was disquieting.
  *MR. BROMLEY-DAVENPORT: I did not say that. What I stated was that, in the view of the military authorities, it would not have been wise or prudent if they had not retained those transport animals.
  MR. LOUGHsaid that showed that the military authorities thought there was a danger of drifting into war. What was the war they were contemplating? If there was any real danger of war the spending of an extra £25,000 upon men cutting grass for ponies would be no use. This was the most grotesque explanation he had ever heard. He wished to know what number of animals were being kept in readiness for this imaginary war. What Power was it that they were likely to go to war with? The hon. Member ought to give them some further information upon this point, and more particularly he ought to tell them whether the danger was now past.
  *MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid he was not entitled to speak on the question whether there was at present any danger of war. But these horses had now been sold, and the men discharged, and these payments no longer continued. Therefore, the hon. Member need not be disquieted in his mind.
  MR. DALZIELthought the raising of this question had been fully justified by the further remarks of the Financial Secretary to the War Office. Judging from the statement he had made he had come to the conclusion that in order to get

  289
  at the real inner mind of the Government they had to go to the junior members of the Administration. The hon. Member had put forward a reason which, with all due respect to him, ho confessed he could not quite understand, and he could not see how it could be the real reason for this extra expenditure. He said that it was due to the fears of the military authorities that this increase in the Estimate had taken place. He thought this was a case in which they ought to have a word from the Secretary for War in justification of such an important departure. The hon. Gentleman himself within the last few minutes explained and defended this Vote on the ground of what was in the mind of the military authorities as to what might transpire in the Far East. The Committee, therefore, were amply justified in asking further information in regard to that statement. What were the fears present to the mind of the military authorities, and who were the military authorities who came to that decision? Was it the late Secretary for War, or was it the present Secretary? Was it the combined intelligence of the whole of the War Office, known as the Army Council? The hon. Gentleman could not get away from the statement he had made, and he ought to tell the Committee what was feared and what rendered this increased expenditure necessary.
  *SIR A. HAYTERasked whether it would not be possible to put this item in a more intelligible form. He was wholly incapable of construing it. It turned out that the expense was for grass-cutters. He wanted to know for what time they were employed and how it was possible to spend that amount on them.
  *MR. McCRAEasked for some details in regard to the work done by civilians attached to units. The revised Estimate amounted to £75,000, being an addition of 50 per cent, on the original Estimate. If the increase had not been spent on wages alone what was the other expenditure?
  CAPTAIN NORTONsaid they were led to understand that the increase was for wages of Kaffir grass-cutters and of certain whites who had charge of the transport animals. The Committee were entitled to know the amount of transport so retained, and also why it was retained. What was the presumption as to the amount of this transport that could be utilised in the Far East? Was the staff in charge of the animals also to be taken to the Far East, although better and cheaper labour for that work could be obtained in India? This charge of £75,000 did not represent the whole of the expenditure, because there was also a charge for forage and so forth for these animals. perhaps the hon. Gentleman would explain what the dangers in the Far East were.
  *MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid that the Supplementary Estimate represented what was paid for services of civilians attached to units. It might be that there was a good deal to be said on both sides of the question as to whether civilians should be employed in certain work in connection with the Army, but they were employed with the view of the increased efficiency of the soldiers. If they wished to get the best service out of the soldier he should not be asked to perform all kinds of civil duties. He could not at the moment enter into the considerations in regard to

  291
  the Far East which led the Government to think that it would not be prudent to sell the animals they had in their possession. The necessity had now entirely passed away. The maintenance of horses in South Africa was enormously expensive, and everybody knew it was a fact that it took only a few months for a horse to perform the extraordinary feat of eating its own head off.
  *MR. McCRAE: That is very interesting, but it does not answer the question whether it was for wages or not. Was it all for wages?
  *MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: Yes.
  MR. WEIRsaid if the Committee were furnished with more information in the
  Estimates it would not be necessary to ask these questions at the cost of a vast amount of valuable time. After the explanation that had been given as to the payment of £25,000 for grass-cutters he was in as great a maze as ever. What were the difficulties in the Far East to which the hon. Gentleman had referred? He was prepared to support the Government when money was prudently and wisely expended, but he was afraid that in this instance there had been a want of wisdom. He, for one, objected to the Estimates bring thrown at their heads in this unsatisfactory fashion.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 172; Noes, 198. (Division List No. 23.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Devlin,CharlesRamsay(Galway

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

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Allen, Charles P.

  Doogan, P. C.

  Hutchinson, Dr.Charles Fredk.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Duffy, William J.

  Johnson, John

  Asquith,Rt.Hn.Herbert Henry

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Edwards, Frank

  Joyce, Michael

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Ellice,Capt EC(S.Andrw'sBghs

  Kearley, Hudson, E.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan,W.

  Bell, Richard

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Kilbride, Denis

  Benn, John Williams

  Evans,Sir Francis H(Maidstone

  Kitson, Sir James

  Boland, John

  Eve, Harry Trclawney

  Labouchere, Henry

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Brigg, John

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Forguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Ffrench, Peter

  Leese, Sir Joseph F(Accrington

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Findlay,Alexander(Lanark,NE

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Levy, Maurice

  Burns, John

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Lough, Thomas

  Caldwell, James

  Gilhooly, James

  Lundon, W.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Gladstone, Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Marnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Cawley, Frederick

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  M'Crae, George

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Hammond, John

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Harcourt, Lewis

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Hardie, J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil)

  M'Kean, John

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Harwood, George

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Crean, Eugene

  Hayden, John Patriek

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Crooks, William

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  M'Laren, Sir Carles Benjamin

  Cullinan, J.

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Murphy, John

  Delany, William

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Richards,Thomas(W.Monm'th)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan,E.)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Thomas,David Alfred(Merthyr)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Tomkinson, James

  O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary Mid

  Roche, John

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

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

  Runciman, Walter

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

  O'Donell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Weir, James Galloway

  O'Dowd, John

  Shackleton, David James

  White, George (Norfolk)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon,N

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Whife, Luke (York, E. R.)

  O'Malley, William

  Sheehy, David

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  O'Mara, James

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Partington, Oswald

  Slack, John Bamford

  Wills, ArthurWalters (N.Dorset

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Wilson, John (Falkirk

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Woodhouse,SirJ.T(Hudd'rsfi'd

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Spencer,RtHn.C.R. (Northants

  Young, Samuel

  Rea, Russell

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Reddy, M.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Mr. Dalziel and Mr.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Mooney.

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie(Dumfries

  Tennant, Harold John

  NOES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Dimsdale,Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph G.

  Howard,John(Kent Faversham

  Allhusen,Augustus HenryEden

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E

  Hozier,Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Doughty, Sir George

  Hunt, Rowland

  Arnold-Forstor,Rt.Hn.Hugh O

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Kenyon-Slaney,Rt Hon Col. W.

  Aubrey-Fletcher.Rt.Hn.Sir H.

  Dyke,Rt.Hn. Sir William Hart

  Keswick, William

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Laurie, Lieut-General

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Balfour,Rt.Hn. A.J. (Manch'r

  Fergusson,Rt.Hn.Sir J.(Manc'r

  Lawson,Hn.H.L.W.(Mile End)

  Balfour,Rt HnGerald W.(Leeds

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lawson,JohnGrant (Yorks.N.R.

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christen.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lee,Arthur H(Hants.,Fareham

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Finlay, Sir R.B (Inv'rn'ssB'ghs)

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birker head)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Legge, Col. Hon Heneage

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Fison, Frederick William

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N S.

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Bill, Charles

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lockwood Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Bingham, Lord

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Forster, Henry William

  Long,Col.(Charles W.(Evesham

  Bond, Edward

  Foster,Philip S(Warwiek,S.W.

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

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lowe, Francis William

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Gardner, Ernest

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Bull, William James

  Gordon, Hn.J.E. (Elgin & Nairn

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

  Lyttelton, Rt, Hon. Alfred

  Campbell,J.H.M.(Dublin Univ.

  Gosehon, Hon. GeorgeJoaehim

  Macdona, John Gumming

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. W.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

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

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Camberlain,RtHn.J.A.(Worc.

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Chapman, Edward

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Maxwell, W.J.H(Dumfriesshire

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

  Hamilton,Marq. of (L'donderry

  Milner.Rt.Hn.Sir Frederick G.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Milvain, Thomas

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Heath,SirJames(Staffords.NW

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Helder, Augustus

  Morpeth, viscount

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Henderson,Sir A.(Stafford, W.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Davenport, W. Bromley

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Davies,Sir Horatio D.(Chatham

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Denny, Colonel

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Mount, William Arthur

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Hope,J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray G.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hoult, Joseph

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  294

  295

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Valentia, Viscount

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Peel,Hn.Wm.Robert Wellesley

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Walrond.Rt Hn. Sir William H.

  Percy, Earl

  Sackville, Col. S. G Stopford

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Samuel,Sir Harry S.(Limehouse

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

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Welby,Sir Charles G.E.(Notts.

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Sharpe, William Edward T

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Purvis, Robert

  Skewes-Gox, Thomas

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Pym, C. Guy

  Smith, Hon W F. D. (Strand)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Spear, John Ward

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

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Garne

  Stanley.Rt, Hn. Lord (Lanes.)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Stewart,Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Wylie, Alexander

  Renwick, George

  Stroyan, John

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chiehester)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Tuff, Charles

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Turnour, Viscount

  Original Question again proposed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  THE ADMINISTRATION.
  On the Motion for the adjournment of the House.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLasked the Parliamentary Secretary of the Treasury whether he had any information to give the House as to the reported resignation of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and the reported intended resignation of the Lord-Lieutenant. It was important that the House, should be informed of these impending changes, especially at a time when the political situation was so critical, because for that very reason it was doubtful whether the Government had the right to make great appointments abroad which might have the effect of prejudicing the future very gravely and of carrying colonial and foreign affairs into extremely controversial regions. It was most important that the House should have the earliest information of the impending reconstruction, for the twelfth or fourteenth time, of the Cabinet.
  *THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD,said that any question as to the reconstruction of the Government should obviously be put to the First Lord of the Treasury. With regard to the other question, he had to say that there was no truth whatever in the report that either the Lord-Lieutenant or the Chief Secretary had tendered his resignation.

  COAL EXPORTS, ETC.
  Return ordered, "giving, for the year 1904, the export of Coal from each Port in the United Kingdom to each Country Abroad, together with summary statements showing the export of Coal in every period of three months from the principal districts of the United Kingdom to the principal groups of Foreign Countries; and also showing the quantity of Coal shipped at each Port in the United Kingdom for ships' use on Foreign voyages during like periods (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 96, of Session 1904)."—(Mr. D. A. Thomas.)
  Adjourned at five minutes after Twelve o'clock.