§ 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|
|Less Surpluses on other Votes-||386,000|
|Deduct Excess Appropriations-in-Aid||600,000|
§ *THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORT, Cheshire, Macclesfield),
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 If the temporary garrison had been withdrawn, as was anticipated, by November 30th, the sum of £500,000 taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year would have sufficed, but as the troops did not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. 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. BROMLEY DAVENPORT
replied 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 DAVENPORT
said 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. McKENNA (Monmouthshire, N.)
said 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-SLANEY (Shropshire, Newport)
said 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!"]
said 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-SLANEY
said 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-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs),
on a point of order, held that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was not entitled to discuss such details under this Vote.
said 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-SLANEY
said 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. FERGUSSON (Manchester, N. E.)
said 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 WELBY (Taunton)
said 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 DAVENPORT
said 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.)217
|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.|
|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|
|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. HAYTER (Walsall)
drew 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. BUCHANAN (Perthshire, E.)
asked 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. WHITLEY (Halifax)
complained 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 HOBHOUSE (Bristol, E.)
asked 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, Belfast, W.)
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 REID (Dumfries Burghs)
asked 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-FORSTER
said this was not a matter arising on this Vote, but he would inquire if such information could be furnished.
§ MR. COURTENAY WARNER (Staffordshire, Lichfield)
moved 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 NORTON (Newmgton, W.)
asked 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 DAVENPORT
said 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 NORTON
asked 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 CHURCHILL (Oldham)
said £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. WINSTON CHURCHILL
said 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 DAVENPORT
said 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 CHURCHILL
said 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 DAVENPORT
said it was absolutely unreasonable that he should be asked to give the names of the officers.
§ MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL
asked 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 BOWLES
thought 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 CHUKCHILL
said 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-FORSTER
said 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. 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 CHURCHILL
asked 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-FORSTER
said 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 WARNER
said 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 HOBHOUSE
said 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. McKENNA
said 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. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs)
asked if the Committee were to understand that this item covered the pay of certain officers in Somaliland?
§ *MR. McCRAE (Edinburgh, E.)
asked 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 CHURCHILL
said 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. WINSTON CHURCHILL
said 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-FORSTER
said 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 CHURCHILL
said 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. MCCRAE
asked 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-FORSTER
said that the hon. Gentleman had better wait for the Estimates. The details had not yet received the sanction of the Treasury.
§ MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE
said that there were certain officers now serving under a special Army Order. What part of the Estimate referred to them.
§ *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
said 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 ROBERTSON
said 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-FORSTER
said 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 CHURCHILL
said that the right hon. Gentleman stated that the Army Estimates would be laid before Parliament shortly.
§ 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.)237
|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)|
|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|
|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 NORTON
in 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.
asked 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 NORTON
said 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.
§ CAPTAIN NORTON
said 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 BOWLES
said 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 REID
said 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. McKENNA
said 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. WHITLEY
said 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
said 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. WHITLEY
said 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. WHITLEY
said 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 CHURCHILL
said 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-FORSTER
said 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. 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 CHURCHILL
said 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-FORSTER
said that was quite true, but he would like to present his Estimates as a whole.
§ MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL
said 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. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.)
said 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.
§ DR. MACNAMARA
said 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
said 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 WARNER
hoped 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. AINSWORTH (Argyllshire)
said 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.
This is not relevant to this item, and should come in on the discussion of the Colonial Estimates.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
asked 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 WALTON (Yorkshire, W. R., Barnsley)
said 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-GEORGE
said he thought he was entitled to a reply to the question which he had put to the Secretary for War.
§ *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
said 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. WHITLEY
said 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-FORSTER
said 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. MACNAMARA
asked 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.
§ SIR ROBERT REID
asked to what extent the troops had been called out in consequence of the reduction in the constabulary.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
replied 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. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)
asked 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.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 190; Noes, 221. (Division List No. 19.)257
|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|
|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|
|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. McKENNA
moved 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 BANBURY (Camberwell, Peckham)
said 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.