ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1912–13.

HC Deb 10 February 1913 vol 48 cc521-56

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"2. That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £248,000, 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, 1913, for Additional Expenditure in respect of the following Army Services, namely:—

	£
Vote 1. Pay, etc., of the Army	215,000
Vote 6. Quartering, Transport, and Remounts	68,000
Vote 7. Supplies and Clothing	95,000
Vote 8. Ordnance Department Establishments and General Stores	45,000
	423,000
Less Surplus on Vote 10	75,000
	348,000
Deduct Excess Appropriations in Aid	100,000
	£248,000"

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely)

The Commiitee will wish to know how it comes that this sum is asked for as a Supplementary Estimate. I shall, of course, be glad to explain any item, but I would like to state how it comes that the Supplementary Estimate is necessary and how we have under budgeted to this extent. There is no item which involves any change in policy, and they have all been previously discussed, but it has been necessary to aske for this further sum for one or two main reasons. In the first place, there are the troops in China, which have had to be kept there owing to the state of the country not being sufficiently calm to enable our representatives to agree to the withdrawal of the Indian troops. That accounts for a sum of £97,000, which we have to pay for the Indian troops which would otherwise be paid for by India. The second item is for insurance, which it was provided should be a supplementary sum for each of the Departments. The third item is for sea transport, which is due partly to the maintenance of troops in China for the reason I have already stated, and partly to the withdrawal of a portion of the garrison in South Africa, which I have already explained to the House. Those items represent £200,000; there remains the sum of £48,000. That is due to the general rise in prices which, as the Committee knows, has been very large. The sum would have been considerably larger but for the Appropriations-in-Aid. I think the Committee will see that in none of these cases could we have foreseen the extra charge that is thrown upon the Treasury. The Committee rightly objects to over-budgeting, so as to keep control of finance. In this case we have under-budgeted, but it is owing to the unforeseen circumstances to which I have drawn attention.

Major ARCHER-SHEE

I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman for some fuller explanation as regards Subhead (c), "Regimental Pay, including Health Insurance Payments." The amount shown is apparently too large to be accounted for solely by health insurance payments, which at the rate of about 1½d. per man per week would amount to a good deal less than £50,000. As regards gratuities and deferred pay to soldiers on discharge, for which £40,000 is taken, we have had no explanation at all. It is a very large sum to be asked for in a Supplementary Estimate. Sub-head (d) is for pay, etc., of Army Reserve, £28,000. Has any sum which is to be allocated to the National Reserve been included in this Sub-head? Owing to the very small amount of detailed information, it has been quite impossible for the Opposition to examine these items carefully; therefore I ask the right hon. Gentleman to supply this further information.

Major WILLOUGHBY

I hope the Secretary of State will give fuller information on these items. We have no idea whatever why a greater amount has been paid as regards gratuities and deferred pay to soldiers on discharge, or why the pay of the Army Reserve is being increased. These items at first sight are most unsatisfactory. It is essential that whatever number of troops was voted by the Committee should be maintained, and if this increased amount is called for in consequence of men being put into the Army Reserve before their time, I think it is most unsatisfactory. If, on the other hand, it is found that we are able to get a larger number of recruits, although it is not possible on this Supplementary Estimate to add to the number of our trained soldiers, I hope the Government will very carefully consider the question of adding to the establishment of our Regular battalions. Earlier in the Session I called attention to the fact that it is most essential that we should have a larger number of trained soldiers in our Regular battalions, and if this increased estimate is caused by reducing the number of trained soldiers, thus making necessary an increased Estimate for the Army Reserve, I think it is most unsatisfactory.

4.0 P.M.

MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE

With the small amount of information which the right hon. Gentleman has given it is not easy to deal with the matters he has placed before us. There are sitting beside the right hon. Gentleman, however, two financial advisers, one past and one present, who will no doubt be able to give us the information we require. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that there is no change in the policy of the War Office. That is rather a pity, as we had hoped there might be in regard to some points with which I will deal if they are in order. We have been told that the Supplementary Estimate is due to a great extent to the expenses of troops in China, which naturally the right hon. Gentleman could not anticipate. It seems rather curious, however, that it should be necessary for the War Office to increase their expenses in China, while the Admiralty, after taking money in their annual Estimates for extra ships for China, have not yet found it necessary to make them. I do not know where the money has gone, and it cannot be discussed on this Vote; but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain the matter. If he cannot, no doubt the First Lord of the Admiralty can tell him privately what the explanation is. With regard to the item of £50,000 for regimental pay, including health insurance payments, my hon. Friend has already pointed out that health insurance does not nearly account for the sum taken. No doubt the Under-Secretary will explain how the £50,000 is made up. I should like to ask in this connection whether there is any idea on the part of the War Office of paying the insurance money in respect to Territorial soldiers? I think he is as well aware as I am that almost all the Territorial Associations —that is the central bodies— have suggested, I believe, so far as I have seen the correspondence, that the insurance of the soldiers should be paid when they are in camp.

The CHAIRMAN

Order, order! That is a matter of policy that does not arise on this Supplementary Vote.

MARQUESS-of TULLIBARDINE

Mr. Whitley, on a point of Order, does the Vote not include health insurance payment of the soldiers when in camp?

The CHAIRMAN

Clearly that should arise on the Vote for the Territorial Service, and not on this Vote.

MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE

May I ask if this has anything to do with health insurance at all?

The CHAIRMAN

I think not.

MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE

Oh, then, we know where we are. What we do know is that this extraordinarily large Supplementary Estimate for the Regular Army in China is large in proportion, and that makes it a very much greater and worse Estimate. I understand, then, that the regimental pay—I presume I am in order in raising the question of the pay of officers—

The CHAIRMAN

No. The Noble Lord must understand that this is only a Supplementary Vote, and only the reasons for the increase asked for can be discussed. What he suggests now will come on on Vote A of the new Estimate for the coming year.

MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE

The right hon. Gentleman did not tell us, Mr. Whitley, what this regimental pay is required for. When I asked him on this point he pointed to his neighbour next door. It would surely be more satisfactory if the right hon. Gentleman did tell us what is the reason for this, and then we should have helped him to get the Vote passed. I think I am in order in asking him, in respect of this increase of regimental pay, the question which I raised on the Army Estimates this year, and which the right hon. Gentleman said he would look into. I think it was he—or perhaps his predecessor—who gave that promise. That is: Why a non-commissioned officer on the permanent staff, still belonging to the Regular Forces, and paid from the Regular Forces, if he belongs to the Infantry and is attached actually, say, to the Cavalry outside the Regular Army on permanent staff duty, why is he paid at Infantry rate, and who is making the profit?

The CHAIRMAN

That, again, is a question for the general Estimates, and not for a Supplementary Estimate.

MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE

I do not, Mr. Whitley, wish to try to get out of order. I desire to keep inside, and not to get out of order with you, but it is an extraordinarily difficult problem, for I want to get certain information, and it seems to me it is not easy to get at it. My hon. Friend beside me reminds me that there is one point I did not quite make clear—that was in regard to the troops in China. What is a necessity for the increased cost of keeping the troops there when we had the Navy there? A point I really want to get at is in respect to the Army Reserve. The amount here has increased by £28,000. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman in this connection whether he can say anything as to the report that I saw in the newspapers—I may add that I do not take everything in the newspapers always to be absolutely accurate, as doubtless the right hon. Gentleman will agree. The point I want to raise is in regard to the officers who, in connection with the Army Reserve, receive £100. These men have belonged to the Officers' Training Corps. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the newspaper report is correct. There are the officers of the Army Reserve, who have to do so much training every year, and receive so much every year; who have been Regular officers and have gone through the whole mill. In the case of the officers from the Officers' Training Corps, men from Oxford and Cambridge—no doubt very estimable young gentlemen—is it true that they can come in as second lieutenants into the Reserve of Officers and be paid, on mobilisation, £100? Does this Estimate include that expenditure? Is it really true, because it does seem to me extremely unfair that the right hon. Gentleman is going to give to the officers of the Officers' Training Corps, with absolutely no experience except their ordinary camp drills at the university, this advantage. I think it is extremely unfair that these officers, with very little experience, may on mobilisation, the day they join, be given the £100, while other officers—

The CHAIRMAN

Will the Noble Lord show me where that is shown in these Estimates? That seems to me again a question for the general management of the Army, and comes up on Vote 1 A.

MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE

I beg pardon. I think it ought to be shown in the Estimate, because it is a very important point. If it is in order, I would like to ask a question as to the cost of forage. May I ask him if this includes the extra cost promised on 9th March? The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War promised he would look into this matter when we were discussing the Army Act. If the Vote includes that increase it will be very satisfactory. I am quite certain that all of us will be agreed on the point. I have raised the point two or three times in the House, and the right hon. Gentleman expressed himself as being fully of the opinion that the matter should be looked into, while the Under-Secretary gave us some hope with regard to the matter on the Army Act discussion. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what has been the cost of this increase of forage? Has it been owing to the actual increase of the price of forage? If so, can he give us any reason for the increase in the price? If it is not in the increase of the actual forage itself, is it on account of any increase in the number of horses? If so, will he tell us what extra horses we have got on the establishment now that we had not before? Does the increase in forage include or exclude any increased feeding of horses for the regiments that have come from South Africa?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant)

It does not.

MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE

No. Then perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us if it does not include the cost of horses from South Africa what these troops that came from South Africa are mounted on? They are certainly not mounted on Cavalry horses. Are they mounted on Infantry cobs?

The CHAIRMAN

I do not think that arises.

MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE

What I want to get at is this: That full-sized horses obviously eat more than cobs, and I really want to know whether or not this amount is justified. If the War Office are economising naturally we would all back them up in it. Still we do not want to economise by giving Cavalry regiments cobs instead of horses. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will tell us what military and strategic reason there is for this. I think there is no other point I would like to raise at the present moment, which, by the way, is not a very satisfactory moment for raising points. There is the pay of the officers that might be raised, the question of barrack furniture, and so on. Is the question of barrack furniture, Mr. Whitley, in order, not barrack stores or hospital stores?

The CHAIRMAN

The Noble Lord is entitled to ask what that money is proposed to be spent on, if that is what he wants?

MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE

I am in an enormous difficulty, as I cannot get an answer out of any of the three Gentlemen representing the War Office.

The CHAIRMAN

A reason for that might be that the Noble Lord himself is at present addressing the House.

MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE

Then may I rise again afterwards?

The CHAIRMAN

Yes.

MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE

Then I shall shortly have great pleasure in sitting down, but I hope I shall get an answer to some of the questions I have put, including that of barrack furniture.

Mr. TENNANT

The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Finsbury, who began this discussion, was correct in assuming that the £50,000, the first item, was more than the amount required for the provisions of the National Health Insurance Act. The amount due on that head is £35,000 in respect of soldiers for which no provision was made in the original Estimate. I may say it was directly according to the Treasury instructions to the War Office that no money was taken in the original Estimate for the National Insurance Act. The remaining £15,000 is an underestimate of pay for the Army. It is what is known as proficiency pay mainly. Hon. Members will be interested to hear that, because it is always satisfactory that the Army is becoming more proficient.

Major ARCHER-SHEE

Is there any officers pay in that?

Mr. TENNANT

I do not think it does include officers pay.

MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE

Where does China come in?

Mr. TENNANT

If the Noble Lord had looked at the inscription on the Vote he would have seen that the China item is Item W, and I am dealing at present with the letter C. The hon. Member for Finsbury also asked whether there was any money taken in these services, amounting to £15,000, for pay for the National Reserve. No, that will come in another Vote, Vote 4 of the Estimates for the coming year. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Stamford is not in error in assuming that the sum he mentioned is required owing to the fact that a larger number of trained men have been transferred to the Reserve from the Regular battalions. I may say that it was the policy of the War Office seven or eight years ago to have a change in the period of service with the colours, and owing to the changes made seven or eight years ago this year and next will be difficult years for recruiting. For some years there would be too many men to be recruited, and other years there would be too few vacancies, and in order to equalise and to get something of an average during the two or three years, 1913, 1914, and 1915, we had in 1912 more men going to the Reserve than the ordinary number.

MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE

Have we had an extraordinary flow of recruits this year to make up for it?

Mr. TENNANT

I think we may say we have had the normal, but more men have gone to the Reserve owing to the brisker employment throughout the country.

Major WILLOUGHBY

Is it a fact that owing to the change of policy at the War Office these men have been allowed to go to the Reserve?

Mr. TENNANT

There has been no change in policy; there is continuity of policy, but owing to the fact that changes were made seven or eight years ago, before this Government had any responsibility in the matter, this action was considered advisable, and it is obvious, if anybody looks at the fact, that the total amount of increase is not very considerable. It is £28,000 to the Army Reserve and £40,000 for gratuities and deferred pay to soldiers on discharge. I hope I have now explained these matters to the satisfaction of the Committee. The Noble Lord opposite was not very lucky in the points he raised, as he got stopped when dealing with them one by one. He spoke about China as if there was some scheme by which the Navy reduced their shins in Eastern waters and that we had been compelled to keep more troops in China. That is not so; it was owing to the internal condition of China which nobody could have foreseen that this extra force was required.

MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE

Were not gunboats in China waters?

Mr. TENNANT

With regard to the question of the cost of forage, my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will answer that. There is no provision in this sum for officers' training corps.

Sir C. HUNTER

There is only one item on which I would like to have a little information and that is as regards this extra £68,000 for transport. I take it that the greater portion of that is due to the removal of the garrison from South Africa, and I rather think that amount ought to have been allowed for in the Army Estimates when they come up. It was public knowledge in South Africa that a certain portion of the troops were going to be removed from the moment that national service had been started in South Africa. I was there myself last February and every soldier was talking about it, and that was before the Army Estimates came up for review, and that sum ought to have been allowed for. Of course, when this universal service was started in South Africa, we knew a great portion of the garrison would be brought away. I think that is regrettable for many reasons. Not only is South Africa a first-class strategic position, but it is one of the few fine training grounds left for Cavalry, Infantry, and Artillery. Beyond that it is an extraordinary fine strategic position either for re-inforcements for India or along the Mediterranean. I look forward to a still further reduction of troops in South Africa as the Union scheme of National Service becomes further developed That perhaps may be a matter of but I hope the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers will never listen to any reduction of the Imperial troops as regards the Cape Police. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell me why in reducing these troops the whole of them have been taken away from Blomfontein. The stations there have been practically shut up.

The CHAIRMAN

I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is raising questions that properly belong to the main Army Estimate.

Sir C. HUNTER

I was afraid I would be stopped in that way, but I thought I was justified in mentioning the matter owing to the fact that the troops could not have been brought away if the money was not forthcoming at the time. The only other point is that I should like some information as to the sum of £60,000 increased contribution from the Colonies. When one looks through the Army Estimates and sees the contributions made by the Colonies, it is very obvious that some of them give very much larger contributions than others which might well bear a larger proportion of the cost. If you take places like the Straits Settlements and China, I think they bear a very much larger proportion than a good many of the others. It would be interesting to the Committee to know where these increases in the Colonial contributions are derived from in order that the Colonies giving that sum might have the proper credit.

Colonel GREIG

The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down raised a very important point, I think, in connection with these Estimtaes. He referred to the transfer of troops and to this sum upon the Estimates, due apparently to the withdrawal of troops from South Africa. The hon. Gentleman seemed to express some regret upon that score, first, because he thought it was a very good training ground, and, secondly, that such a policy would not meet with his approval. If his mind went back forty or fifty years ago, he would see that in 1860 a unanimous Resolution was passed by the House of Commons in that year to the effect—

MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE

Is it in order to discuss this matter?

The CHAIRMAN

No, it is not in order. This is obviously a matter for general debate at the beginning of the Session.

Colonel GREIG

Then I shall not pursue that argument. I am extremely glad to see that the withdrawal of troops is going on owing to the action of this party in giving autonomy to South Africa.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Gentleman is now dragging in policy, which is strictly left out of discussion on Supplementary Estimates.

Colonel GREIG

Then I shall confine myself solely to the question of method. The Noble Marquess opposite intimated in his speech that he found it a little difficult to know exactly where he was. He eventually did discover that there was no new policy initiated by these Grants, but he wanted to know a little as regards something, and, first of all, as regards the expenses for China. I presume that is expenditure of which we shall see a reduction in a short time. I do not imagine that hon. Members opposite will suggest we ought to retain our troops there longer than is absolutely necessary. I will not deal with the question of pay for the insurance of Territorial soldiers; that is a matter, as the Chairman intimated, that can be brought up on the discussion of the Territorial force. It deserves the serious consideration of the House, nor do I imagine we can deal with the extra payment to the National Reserve which, I am sure, will give great satisfaction throughout the country, but I should like to know something about the forage. There is an extra amount for forage. It may be either due to the greater consumption or to the price having gone up. What I should like to know is where do we obtain the greater bulk of our forage. Is it from the farmers of the British isles? And if so, I presume they have benefited by this greater cost. One other point. There are extra payments for the number of men transferred to the Reserve. That, again, the Under Secretary explained, is due to the desire to equalise the recruiting from year to year, and I think if the hon. Gentleman opposite who spoke upon the subject traced the recent history of transfers to the Reserve he would have seen that owing to the alteration in the service of soldiers some years ago, this matter had to be faced sooner or later, and I think it is a very wise policy of the Government to permit the extra transfers to take place so as to regularise the transfers to the Reserve. I think we are all aware that owing to the system in operation we have a higher number of Reservists, forming a magnificent body of men, due entirely to the system we have in operation for the last thirty or forty years.

MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE

Did I understand the hon. and gallant, Gentleman to say that he wished to see the forage bought in this country?

The CHAIRMAN

That is a matter for the Government.

Colonel GREIG

If the Noble Lord will send me notice of that question I will answer it.

Sir FREDERICK BANBURY

When hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite were in Opposition, they were never tired of criticising Supplementary Estimates, but when they are in office they are never tired of bringing forward Supplementary Estimates for large sums. This is as an Estimate for £423,000, less certain savings on new works and deductions for excess Appropriations-in-Aid. It is true that that sum is not a very large percentage upon the total amount spent upon the Army, but nevertheless it is a very large sum, and it ought not to have been necessary to bring forward a Supplementary Estimate in the case of the Army at all. Why are Supplementary Estimates necessary, and on what ground can they be excused? Only on the ground that there has been an unforeseen expenditure which could not be contemplated when the original Estimate was produced. I would like to ask the Secretary for War whether he can show why there has been this large increase in the expenditure which was not contemplated at the time the original Estimates were prepared. My military knowledge is of a small character, but I am approaching this question not from a military, but from a business point of view. I was under the impression that there was a reduction in the Army, and therefore it should not have been necessary to bring forward these Estimates. If there has really been a reduction in the size of the Army, surely it ought not to be necessary to increase the amount which the nation is called upon to pay. If, unfortunately, the country is to be blessed with the presence of right hon. Gentlemen opposite in office much longer, I hope they will take my remarks to heart, and endeavour to bring forward their Estimates in a more businesslike manner.

There are two things I wish to allude to, namely, the cost of provisions and the cost of forage. I remember not long ago we were told that if certain things took place our food would cost us more. Those things have not taken place, and yet our food is costing us more. I want to know why the Secretary for War and his advisers, with all their knowledge, made such an extremely bad estimate when the original Estimates were prepared. Is it duo to the fact that there has been a larger number of men in the field? [An HON. MEMBER: "Increased price."] Surely it is not an increased price with the present Secretary of State in charge of the Army? We all thought it was going to be a decreased price. This is really a matter of housekeeping. I presume the price of food has gone up, but the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers knew this, and why did they not allow for it in the Estimates, particularly in regard to the cost of forage? Even I knew forage had gone up. I know it has not gone up in the last five or six months; oats may have been a little dearer, and I know they were dear last March, perhaps 1s. or 2s. a quarter more; but hay is not at its top price, in fact it is lower than it was five or six months ago, and straw is about the same. I am paying for straw exactly what I was paying a year ago, and I presume those in charge of the Army are as businesslike as I am. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Well, they would be if we were on the other side, and they ought to be able to buy forage as well as an ordinary civilian. I hope we shall have some explanation on this point. An hon. Member asked if this forage was all bought in England or abroad. Now, that is a very thorny question, and I am sure I should be out of order in going into it; but, after all, it is the business of the Government to get the best article at the lowest price, and, although I am a Tariff Reformer, I do not propose to go into that question. I understand that the Financial Secretary is going to tell us all about these things, and I hope he will give us a careful explanation and some assurance that next month, when we meet again to consider the Army Estimates, he will really exercise some businesslike care in the preparation of the Estimates for next year.

Sir JOHN JARDINE

I wish to ask the question with regard to the item of £97,000 for the expenses of native Indian troops. I wish to know whether that is likely to be a recurring charge? I understand it has been incurred on account of the extra Indian troops temporarily employed in China. I should also like to know if that sum includes the item of transport, and if it covers the full cost of those troops, or whether the Government of India has made any payment towards the cost. I want to know whether this item is one that falls on the British Exchequer in the end, or whether it will be decreased by any payment out of the revenues of India or the India Office, or the Governor-General in Council at Calcutta? I hope when the Financial Secretary makes his reply to these questions he will deal as fully as he call with this rather large and certainly very interesting item.

Colonel YATE

With reference to the charge of £97,000 for the native Indian troops, I wish to say that I welcome this charge in the Estimates most cordially. I am glad to think that the Indian regiments are willing to serve their Sovereign in all parts of the Empire, and I am glad the Empire is willing to pay for the services of those troops whenever they may be required. With regard to the item of £28,000 for the pay of the Army Reserve, may I ask whether, by increasing the number of the Army Reserve, the complements of the battalions serving at home have been in any way reduced? Those complements now are very small indeed, and in allowing extra men to go to the Reserve I trust no reduction is being permitted in the home battalions in any way whatever. I should like an assurance on that point from the hon. Member opposite. I wish to know, also, if any provision has been made in the £28,000 for paying the Army Reserve men in a different manner? We know the custom of paying these Army Reserve men has been that they have been paid £2 5s. down every quarter, and this has led to tremendous difficulties, and it has been bad for the Army.

The CHAIRMAN

That is a matter of general policy, which cannot be discussed now, and which is applicable to the Army Estimates for the year.

Colonel YATE

I understood there was a little extra money required for this purpose. With regard to the £68,000 required for meeting the cost of the sea transport of troops from South Africa, I do not know whether it would be in order, but possibly the hon. Member opposite will be able to say whether any of the troops brought home are to be disbanded. I trust we shall have some assurance that that is not the case. The question of forage has been referred to. I should like to know whether these provisions and forage have been purchased in England or imported from abroad? I notice that on new works there has been a saving of £75,000. We all know how short the Army is of accommodation for commanding officers and married officers. I know one instance where a married officer had to go twenty miles to find a suitable house, and I would like to know why this £75,000 has been deducted from the building estimate when so much accommodation is required? It is one of the crying hardships of the Army that married officers are never able to get suitable quarters for their wives and families. When we find that an officer has to go twenty miles away to get a house, it is high time the War Office provided more houses, instead of attempting to save £75,000 out of the Estimates.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker)

The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) made a general charge against the Supplementary Estimates. I do not think he would have made that charge if he had heard the speech of the Secretary of State for War. The hon. Baronet said all these items of expenditure ought to have been foreseen, and that we might have anticipated them. I think he will see that every single item is of a kind which justifies itself, and could not have been included in the ordinary Estimates. Take the Question of forage, in which hon. Members have taken a great interest. It is quite true that food is costing more and the food of horses is also costing more; the price of everything has gone up, and particularly the price of forage. We estimated at the beginning of the year that although we were paying 1s. 6d. for forage, it might go up a little, but it would probably drop in the autumn, and that we might safely strike an average for the year of 1s. 5d. [An HON. MEMBER: "For what?"]

MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE

Does the hon. Member mean per quarter, per bushel, or per stone?

Mr. H. BAKER

That is the index number for purposes of Estimates.

Sir F. BANBURY

Is it for corn?

Mr. H. BAKER

No; hay is the item that has risen most. There is not very much variation in the price of oats, but in the case of hay there has been a considerable rise, and so far from forage falling as we had hoped to 1s. 5d., it has actually risen to 1s. 7d. We arc compelled for that reason to come to the House and ask for this extra sum of £65,000. It is not in any way due to the number of horses; it is entirely due to the rise in the price. With regard to the way in which forage was purchased, I may say that the hay was purchased entirely at home, and the oats partly at home and partly from sources abroad.

Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY

Would the hon. Gentleman give us a rough estimate of the proportion?

The CHAIRMAN

I am afraid that would lead to a debate on policy.

Mr. H. BAKER

I am only concerned at this moment to explain why an extra sum is needed. On another and more suitable occasion I shall be very glad to answer the hon. and gallant Gentleman. The item for sea transport divides itself into two parts. There is the charge for the extra sea transport of troops from India to China, and that necessitated by the withdrawal of troops from South Africa. With regard to the movement of troops to China, I may say the change took place in January and February of last year, but the charge did not come in to us until April, after the beginning of the next financial year. It is for that reason it figures in this Supplementary Estimate and is not provided for in the original Estimate. I would point cut to hon. Members who say we ought to have anticipated the withdrawal of troops from South Africa, that it was impossible for us to come to any definite decision until the autumn of this year. It would, indeed, have been improper on our part to have anticipated the passing into law of the Defence Act of South Africa. The question of Colonial contributions has been raised. These contributions are arranged on a system by which they bear a proportion to the total revenue of the Colonies concerned. We are not always able to anticipate that revenue; if a Colony miscalculates its revenue the amount we receive varies. In this case the revenue has gone up in consequence of the increased price of rubber, opium, and other articles, and it is for that reason we have this variation in our Army Estimates at home.

Sir C. HUNTER

Is the proportion of contribution the same in the case of all the Colonies?

Mr. H. BAKER

I think it it not the same, but the fact is not of great importance, because at this moment there is an Interdepartmental Committee sitting on that very question under my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland, and they may, of course, make a change in the present system. There has also been an increase in the value of the dollar at Hong Kong which has led to an increase in our Appropriation-in-Aid in this Estimate. We have had further an increased payment by India in respect of the soldiers who have passed to the Army Reserve. The soldier gets £1 for each year he has served with his regiment when he passes into the Reserve, and India pays a share in proportion to the length of his service in India. Then there is the question of the maintenance of these Indian troops in China. No one, neither the Foreign Office nor the War Office, could have foreseen when the Army Estimates were introduced last year that we should require to keep these troops so long a time in China. It was impossible then to realise that the internal affairs of China would necessitate our keeping these extra battalions there. The hon. Member for Roxburgh (Sir J. Jardine) asked how the expense of these troops was met. When they go from India to China they pass temporarily into the administration of the War Office, and we have then to bear the cost of their maintenance while there and also to pay for their equipment. When they return to India we shall get credit for the value of their equipment. The question of the Army Reserve was raised by the hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Leicestershire (Colonel Yate). He asked whether the battalions abroad had been reduced in consequence of these extra number of men passing into the Army Reserve.

Colonel YATE

Battalions at home?

Mr. H. BAKER

I am not able to tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether that is precisely so or not, but he may, at any rate, be quite sure this figure in the Supplementary Estimate represents mere numbers and nothing else. With regard to the question of pay, there has been no change of policy at all, and no difference has been made in the pay given to the Army Reservists. The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked why there was this large item for money not expended on new works. I am afraid that is an item which is apt to recur in Army Estimates. It is very difficult to calculate precisely what works will be made, and the surplus is entirely due to delay which has occurred in the construction of certain barracks. The Director of Barrack Construction is at present a very hard-worked person. He has a very vast field to cover, and I am not quite sure he has a staff exactly able to take his place when his own personal operation is not possible. We are, however, going to remedy that very soon, and I hope in future we shall be able to make a much closer estimate. I think I have now covered the various points raised, and perhaps succeeding in persuading the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) that really no man of ordinary prudence, or even of exceptional prudence, could forsee these variations.

Mr. JAMES HOPE

May I express my sympathy with you, Sir, in having so often to call to order hon. Members with whom I know you have a warm feeling in your heart, because, if I may throw my mind back ten years, there was no Member who more diligently, efficiently, and regularly criticised Supplementary Estimates than yourself, and I think I may also say you escaped those pitfalls into which you have seen so many hon. Members fall this afternoon. A rather remarkable statement was made by the Under-Secretary with regard to the question of health insurance. He was understood to say the War Office would have been prepared to submit an estimate in the ordinary course in this matter, but they did not do so under direct instructions from the Treasury. I think the matter wants clearing up. The Insurance Act was passed some months before the Estimates were presented, and its effect could have been foreseen. Yet the Treasury apparently gave direct instructions to the War Office that no Estimate on this matter was to be presented. That is really an extraordinary thing. It was an item which followed directly from legislation and could have been foreseen, and it should not have been excluded from the ordinary Estimates by direct instructions from another Department. There was another statement made by the hon. Gentleman which I found difficulty in following, and that was with regard to the extra number of men going into the Reserve. I understood him to say that, owing to a scheme in vogue started seven or eight years ago, it was foreseen that in a certain two years there would be some difficulty in calculating the extra flow of men from the Army into the Reserve, and therefore a little more was asked for one year and a little less for another year. If all that was foreseen some years ago, why could it not have been foreseen this year? I understood him to say it was calculated years ago that either last year and the year before or this year and the coming year there would be a special difficulty, and, if that be so, why was not that difficulty provided for? The hon. Gentleman's explanation was a good deal wide of his usual lucidity in this matter, and I am afraid he left the Committee rather in a fog as to how this difficulty, owing to a former scheme, had arisen, and why it was not allowed for in the original Estimates.

I do not know whether it would be in order to touch further upon the question of forage, but I think it would be so far in order to ask why, if all the hay can be bought in this country, all the oats cannot too? I should like to ask one or two questions about the item for the troops in China. It is a very large sum, and involves questions of policy. It has been very difficult to calculate how long these troops will be required in China, but I think a little more light should be thrown upon the matter. Where are the troops and what are their duties? Are they merely at Weihaiwei or are they looking after the interests of British subjects elsewhere? Has the Government now any idea how long they will be required? What reports have they as to the need of their presence? A step like this may lead to large consequences. The whole of the China War was brought about by the indiscretion of a gentleman who had been a leading politician in this House. We should like to know what these troops are doing, and how long they are likely to remain, and who controls them. Are they controlled by the Indian authorities, although paid for at home, or does the commanding officer get his orders directly from the War Office? I really think some further explanation is necessary, and in order to focus the matter I now beg to reduce Item W by £1,000.

The CHAIRMAN

We have already one reduction before the Committee.

Mr. HAMAR GREENWOOD

With regard to Vote 1Y, under the head "Increased Colonial Contributions and other receipts, £60,000," I should like to know from what Colonies these contributions come and on what principle they are paid. Further, why do some Colonies pay contributions and others pay no contributions? If one may refer the Secretary of State for War to the principal Estimates it is made clear that, whilst the Army is presumably for the whole Emipre, the contributions come from the home country almost entirely, with a small contribution from those Colonies, and those Colonies only, that have no democratic institutions.

5.0 P.M.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Gentleman has introduced the main Estimates himself, and he may deduce from that that when we come to the main Estimates that will be the proper time to discuss the matter.

Mr. GREENWOOD

This is a discussion on the Supplementary Estimates, and even with such a genial autocrat as yourself in the Chair, I think it is the most difficult matter in military tactics that we are likely to have in this House. I will leave my proposition where you cut me off.

Major WILLOUGHBY

I cannot say that I thought the explanation with regard to the Reserves was satisfactory. First of all the hon. Gentleman stated that there was no change of policy, and then we were told that it could not be foreseen. How can these two statements be reconciled? If there is no change of policy, why could the cost not have been foreseen? Personally, I am opposed to this policy, and whether it is a new policy or an old policy I still object to it. It seems to me a costly policy, because if these men had been retained in the Service and kept there as trained soldiers it would have been a great advantage to the country, and so long as we kept them there they would have cost less than they have cost by sending them into the Reserve. It certainly is a great misfortune that these men's services were not retained up to the last minute in the standing Army, so that if necessary they might have been called upon. On the contrary, they have been taken away, and it does seem an extraordinary thing that in consequence of that we should have less efficiency and increased cost. As to the principle of the alteration, I have no doubt it has been brought about owing to the change of service about 1906, but, if that be so, it could have been foreseen, and I say it is a very unsatisfactory explanation, and I shall support my hon. Friend in the Lobby unless there is a more clear and consistent statement from the Government Benches.

MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE

There are still three or four points which I want to be clear about. The Secretary of State for War told us practically nothing, and I imagine that the Financial Secretary and the Under-Secretary said a great deal more than the Secretary of State wished them to say. With regard to the explanation of the Under-Secretary, he said that the Treasury had given orders that the Insurance Act was not to be mentioned in the old Estimates.

Mr. TENNANT

What I said was that no sum had to be taken.

MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE

It is as broad as it is long, and I hope he may be able to explain to us how that was. I cannot talk about the Insurance Act, as that would be out of order, but it does seem strange that when hon. Members knew perfectly well that these expenses were coming on they were not included in the old Estimates. They knew all about the Insurance Act, at least as much as anybody did, but they put in no figures at all; they kept it all back for the Supplementary Estimates. That could only have been for one of two reasons: either they wished to keep the Army expenses down or to keep the insurance expenses down. Judging from what the hon. Member said just now it was to keep the insurance expenses down as the orders were received from the Treasury. The War Office must have asked for it and had it sent back. I infer that, at any rate, from what he has said. It is a pity the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not here to support him when he said that. The Financial Secretary made several astounding statements. One was that forage was bought by index number. I do not understand what he means. It is just possible he meant the allowance for forage per horse per day, but I am afraid I do not know what the index number means in buying forage. He told us that nothing but British hay was bought in this country for the Army. May I ask whether he is going to stick to that? Does he really say that it was all British hay that was bought for the whole of the Army in this country last year? If that be the case, nobody would sooner congratulate him than I would, but it is news to some of us, and if that is the case, and he is going to stick to British goods, could he not buy British oats at the same time? If the War Office would only take the trouble they could get British oats of far better quality.

The CHAIRMAN

Unless the Noble Lord can show that this subject is covered by the Estimates he cannot raise that.

MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE

I thought it had been decided. This is the first occasion on which the Army has ever bought only British hay, and it is a very important point to this country. Am I to understand that no Canadian hay was bought this year for the British Army? The last thing he mentioned amounted to a charge against a certain Department of the Army that the only person capable of making out Estimates and specifications in the Barrack Department was the head of the staff, and that the rest of the staff were practically useless; that they were only capable of doing their work when he was there looking after them. That is a reflection upon those who are responsible for choosing the staff.

Mr. HAROLD BAKER

I did not say they were not capable of doing their own work; I said they were not capable of doing his work.

MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE

There is an old saying which might be applied to the Government, that in every well-ordered regiment, if you move off one man, there is another man ready to take his place. The War Office might attempt to run its staff on the same idea; it is not only a question of pay, but a question of choice. There are people who are capable of doing it. What I suppose he did not wish to say, and neither he nor I would wish to say it of any Department that is working well and hard, is that probably the staff is not sufficient, or the War Office, or the Treasury will not pay sufficient to have it propery staffed. If he would remedy that, no one would be more ready to support him than I would. I should like to have an answer on these three points, and especially upon the latter one, the statement that not a blade of foreign hay has been bought for the British Army this year.

Mr. WATT

I desire to associate myself with the hon. Baronet (Sir Frederick Banbury) and yourself, Mr. Chairman, ten years ago, in raising objections altogether to these Supplementary Estimates. I venture to think the House should be very jealous indeed of Supplementary Estimates. They indicate a blunder on the part of the Department. When a Supplementary Estimate is brought forward, it clearly shows that those who are in the Department, who had to make the original Estimate, did not make a proper Estimate of the circumstancces at the time. Of course things will arise at odd times which are unforeseen, as for example the China expenses in this case, which no Department could have foreseen; but generally speaking it is the business of the Department to make its original Estimate with some approach to accuracy. The accuracy of the Department in this case is not remarkable. Take the two Items A and B, cost of provisions £30,000, and of forage £65,000. They are £95,000 out. We have had what was thought to be an explanation from the Under-Secretary. For my part as a mere civilian, it did not bring any light to my mind. Some vague figures were given that they had estimated that 1s. 5d. would be the price, that it might go up to 1s. 6d., and that actually it went up to 1s. 7d. None of us has the slightest idea what he means by that information, and I desire that he would give us more enlightenment in a form which we could understand as to why the Department was £95,000 out in this Estimate. I would like to know what percentage that represents—£95,000 out in how much? Was the principal Estimate £500,000 or £1,000,000? Taking it at £1,000,000, the Department has been wrong by 10 per cent. in its forecast. I venture to think the Department should be almost censured for such inability to perceive the possible rise in prices. Can the Under-Secretary tell us what are the actual facts? Can he say that, cheese is so much up or down, or that other items or food for horses or soldiers have gone up, that he anticipated it would be so much, and what the actual price is? These are plain facts and figures, but he gives us instead those cryptic figures of 1s. 5d. to 1s. 7d., and does not even tell us whether they apply to so much per day, or per horse, or per man. I should also like to know whether any censure has been passed by the War Secretary on those members of his staff who have failed to foresee the wants of his Department? Will he take care in future that their Estimates will be nearer to the actual wants of the Department than they have been this year?

Mr. CHARLES PRICE

I should like to ask whether it is the custom in getting these provisions for use in Scotland to ask for Estimates in Scotland? I have received a great number of complaints from merchants and manufacturers that goods have been sent from London to Scotland for this Department.

The CHAIRMAN

That must be raised on the main Estimate.

Sir F. BANBURY

I am afraid that the explanation of the hon. Gentleman was not so satisfactory as I could wish. He told me that if I had listened to the explanation of his hon. Friend I should have been converted, but if the explanation of his hon. Friend was no better than his own, I certainly could not be satisfied. I ask the hon. Gentleman two questions, first, whether he could explain why it was necessary to have a Supplementary Vote for provisions and also for fodder, and why the price for provisions and forage could not have been foreseen when the Estimates were made, which generally takes place in January or February? The hon. Gentleman gave no explanation whatever with regard to the price of provisions, beyond stating that everything was dearer. With that rather perfunctory remark he passed on to the question of fodder, and told us that the Department originally based their Estimates upon the price of 1s. 5d., but that it was now 1s. 7d. I asked him whether that referred to corn or to hay and he said it referred to hay.

Colonel SEELY

No, no. I will reply to that later.

Sir F. BANBURY

I do not see where the 1s. 5d. comes in. I presume the allowance to a Cavalry horse is about 12 pounds a day. That at £5 a ton would cost 3s. 9d. a week, or 6½d. a day. Supposing it is hay, may I ask the hon. Gentleman how it is that the Estimate was not made in a proper manner last January or February? My belief is that last, January or February hay was about £5 or £5 10s. a ton. It went up in September and October to about £6 a ton, but has since gone down and is now about £5 to £5 10s. per ton. I am buying Canadian hay at £5 per ton at the present moment. I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he picked out the two months when hay was at a much higher price in order to lay in a store? If he did not, seeing that there has been such little variation between the price of hay last February and at the present moment, why is there this large increase in the cost of forage? Oats have varied, but not very much, during the last year. I believe they are dearer now than they have been for a long time, and that I am correct in saying that about 2s. a quarter is the utmost rise that has taken place from last January or February to the present time. It would have been more satisfactory if we had been told exactly how the increased expenditure arises, instead of being referred to an index number, which I suppose indicates a certain fixed amount for the whole of the Army.

Mr. C. PRICE

On a point of Order, Sir. Am I entitled to ask whether any portion of the £30,000 applies to Scotland, and, if any portion does apply to Scotland, whether I am not entitled to ask what proportion of the goods was secured in Scotland?

The CHAIRMAN

The Secretary of State informs me that there has been no change of policy as to the method of purchasing; therefore, if any hon. Member wishes to advocate a change, he should raise the question on the main Estimates when they come up.

Mr. C. PRICE

I was not advocating a change, but simply asking a question, because I do not know what the War Office are in the habit of doing. I want to get at the facts, because I have had certain complaints made to me.

The CHAIRMAN

Then Question Time will be the right time for that.

Major ARCHER-SHEE

There is a small point with reference to Sub-head G, "Pay of the Army Reserve, £28,000." If a number of men have been sent into the Army Reserve, the number not being known when the Army Estimates were before the House last year, there must have been a repayment under some head for the pay of these men. The pay of men willing to serve in the Army is much higher than that of men serving in the Reserve. There is no mention here of a repayment of the pay of those men which would have been drawn had they remained in the Army, and it must have exceeded this £28,000 by a considerable sum. No doubt there is a full explanation of the matter, for I do not know what are the ramifications of War Office finance. With regard to hay, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to clear up the matter whether this is British hay or British and Canadian hay.

Mr. NEWMAN

The Under-Secretary and the Financial Secretary have thrown a certain amount of vagueness over the Votes relating to the expenses of the China Command and the transport of troops. With all respect to the Under-Secretary, I do not think he knows how many troops we have in South China, or the exact stations. I have taken the trouble to turn up the Army List, and I find that in April, 1912, we had only a comparatively small force in Southern China, which has been largely increased, and I should say the increase took place some time after January and February of last year. According to the Army List, in the South China Command we had one battalion of British Infantry, eight Rajputs, and 126 Native Infantry. In January, 1913, the force had been increased to two battalions of British Infantry, eight Rajputs, twenty-five Punjabis, 126 Native Infantry, and twenty-four Hazara Mountain Batteries, three companies Hong Kong and Singapore Royal Garrison Artillery, and two companies of Royal Engineers. We want to know exactly how this big sum of £97,000 has been arrived at. Who pays for the South ChinaCommand—the Indian authorities or ourselves? If it is paid for by the Indian authorities and they pay the staff, I should like to point out that at present the staff is not large enough. In April, 1912, there was a major-general and a staff, consisting of ten people, of whom five were colonels. Although there was the increase in the number of troops, we have the same major-general, and practically the same staff, only one man being added. Surely that is not right. With regard to the withdrawal of troops from South Africa, the Vote is rather excessive. We have withdrawn from the Pretoria command one battalion of Infantry, one brigade of Artillery, and one Cavalry regiment; from the Orange Free State a regiment of Cavalry, a brigade of Artillery, and one battalion of Infantry; and for that we have had to pay £68,000. I know that the cost of freights has gone up, and that those who have the good luck to hold shares in ship- ping companies have done well; but I think that is a very excessive price for the withdrawal of foreign units.

Captain JESSEL

I should like to have an explanation of the increase of £28,000 for men going into the Army Reserve. Is it because men are being sent into the Reserve earlier than is necessary? No doubt the right hon. Gentleman is aware of complaints which are made, especially at Aldershot, of men being sent into the Army Reserve just before brigade training, so that the brigades on manœuvres were full of partially untrained men. More care should be taken to send men into the Reserve at the proper time, and not at the time when they are getting ready for manœuvres. As to the bringing home of troops from South Africa, does the money include the cost of the accommodation of the troops who have returned? The right hon. Gentleman has stationed the 15th Hussars at Longmore. I understand there is no accommodation there for their wives and families, and that a great deal of inconvenience has arisen.

Colonel YATE

Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that the troops which are brought home from South Africa are not going to be disbanded?

The CHAIRMAN

That is a matter of policy, which cannot be discussed now.

Colonel YATE

As regards the surplus of £75,000 under the head of "New works," could not the right hon. Gentleman, instead of allowing the sum to lapse, expend the money in the purchase of houses which are so much required for officers. In many cases houses have been marked for purchase, and here is the money ready for them. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will complete those purchases and not allow the money to lapse. As to the Army Reserve, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us an assurance that the battalions at home will be kept at full strength, and I trust he will consider the question of paying Reservists in the same way as old age pensioners are paid, namely, weekly through the Post Office, and not by giving them £2 5s. in a lump sum.

Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY

There was a remark made by the Under-Secretary of which I should like an explanation. I understood him to say it was on account of brisk employment that more men joined the Reserve. Are we to understand that when employment is brisk we are to lose part of our fighting force, because certainly that remark opens the door to such thoughts, and I should like an explanation of it.

Colonel SEELY

Before we dispose of the Vote, the Committee would probably like me to reply to the points which have-been raised in all parts of the House. I will first deal with the general question as to whether we ought not to have foreseen that this money would have been required. I think this is a case where the House would have reason to complain if we had over-Budgeted to such an extent that we did not require a Supplementary Estimate, and it is very rash ground to take up, in view of the fact that we may some day be sitting on that side—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."]—it is just conceivable—that a Supplementary Estimate is always a sign of bad management. It is a sign that a Department does not over-Budget. In this case we have several very large items which could not have been foreseen. The first was for troops in China, which amount (without their transport) to £97,000. We pay for the troops in China because it is not an Indian charge. On that point I am asked how many there are. There are 2,200 extra troops over and above the normal, and if I am asked where their station is the answer is; It is in and around Tientsin. If I am asked why we could not have foreseen this charge, it is because we had always reason to hope that the situation in China would be such that internal order would be completely restored, and we could return the troops to India. I am in hopes that we may be able to do so in the near future, but I cannot be sure. If next year I come and ask for a Supplementary Estimate on the same grounds, I am sure the Committee will not grudge it, because the one thing they would object to would be that I should ask them to stay there, and have a large extra amount to play with over which the Committee will have no control.

The second point is as to insurance. I am asked why we did not foresee that insurance might be required, and my hon. Friend says it was laid down as a general principle by the Government that the sums for insurance should not be put in the original Estimate, but should be asked for from the House by way of Supplementary Estimate. I think no criticism can be made of that, because the Act did not come into full operation till long after the Estimates were framed; indeed, not till the 15th January. It is true that we had reason to hope and believe that the Act would become effective, but we could not be certain, and the Leader of the Opposition himself said definitely that if he were responsible for affairs, he would repeal the Act in order to amend it drastically. That would have meant that a totally different charge would be required; so, from the point of view of financial purity, it was the proper course to take until the Act was effective, and we knew whether the Government would remain in office and keep the Act in its present form, and no one knows better than the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) that our existence has been at times, precarious.

Sir F. BANBURY

If the right hon. Gentleman is going to put it on the ground that the Government may soon go out, I will forgive him everything.

Colonel SEELY

I am putting it on the ground that if the hon. Baronet is always as acute as he has been on at least one occasion, the Government might go out. Therefore, although we may look forward with some confidence to continuing to administer affairs for some time to come, it would be rash, in view of the opportunities the hon. Baronet has taken advantage of already, to assume for the purposes of finance, that every Act that we propose shall become wholly effective before that time has come. So much for the Insurance Act. There remains the third point of transport. We could not foresee that we should be able to bring home troops from South Africa, nor could we foresee that we should require to transport these extra troops and their reliefs to China. With regard to South Africa, it has been said, "Surely you knew that when the Defence Scheme became effective you would withdraw your troops from South Africa. It was the common policy of all parties in the State." Yes, it was. But we could not foresee that the Defence Act would be passed and would be accepted, as it has been, with remarkable success in South Africa. Therefore, I again submit that we were right not to assume that a thing was going to happen in South Africa, even if we hoped it would, as I think everyone else hoped it would, and as, happily, has been the case.

There remains the question of the increase in prices. The increase in prices has been general, both for what is eaten by man and beast, and what is borne by beast for man, and it is owing to these facts that we have to ask for a Supplementary Estimate. It may be said we ought to have foreseen the increase in prices. I do not think we could have foreseen it, and I think it is far better to make as just an Estimate as you can and frankly to come to the House of Commons and confess there has been an increase beyond what could reasonably have been expected. The hon. Baronet was pleased to be somewhat sarcastic at our expense with regard to the increase in prices. I am not going to reply that it was the dread of Tariff Reform which made prices go up. I do not think that was so; for if so, prices would now have gone down. I will only say that, although I do not think it can be fairly urged at this stage that the increase has been due to any such cause, we could not have foreesen the general world rise in prices, for it is the world price we are dealing with here. It has affected every country in the world simultaneously with our own.

There is one point which I have not yet touched upon, that is Items F and G on this Vote—Transfer to Reserve. The reason why more men have gone to the Reserve than was anticipated is, as has been truly stated, the wonderful degree of employment. Nearly every man knows that he is sure of good employment if he goes to the Reserve, therefore more men have gone into the Reserve than we could have foreseen. But it is said, "Why did you allow any man to go to the Reserve before his time? May I explain? Mr. Arnold Forster proposed a new scheme for the Army of enlistment for three years. A very considerable number of these men took on for six more, making nine years. The consequence is that in the year 1914—that is next year—a very abnormal number of men will leave the Army. If then my military advisers had done nothing, what would have happened would be that this year we should have had a rather smaller number of men leaving the Army, and unless we had been able to enlist a large extra number over and above what appears in Vote A, we should obviously have lost a large number of recruits. But we are not allowed to make allowances in this way; therefore, had we not arranged for more men to leave and take their gratuity a year before the time, we should have lost an immense number of potential recruits. Then in the following year, in 1914, there would have been a very large efflux, we should have wanted recruits for two years, and we should only have found recruits for one.

Viscount DALRYMPLE

You are sending men to the Reserve to bring in more recruits.

Colonel SEELY

The Noble Lord has not quite apprehended. I am only allowed to have a certain number of men in Vote A. If he will look at Vote A for last year he will see the total number of men we are permitted to enlist. We are not allowed to have any more. But very few men would normally go this year for the reason I have stated. I am convinced that my military advisers were right in the course they took, and, of course, I take the fullest responsibility; but even if I had any doubt as to whether it was right, there are two points: firstly, allowing that this efflux is necessary in order to take in the recruits, has it taken place at the right time; and, secondly, have too many men gone, and will you not therefore be a little short. Take the first point. That is a matter of administrative detail which I do not think the Chairman would allow me to discuss. I am advised that every effort has been made to avoid a large transference at inconvenient moments, but if 1 find on further inquiry that the point has real substance in it, I will undertake to see that every effort is made to avoid a recurrence of such a state of affairs in future in carrying out what I believe to be an absolutely necessary policy. Now with regard to the second point: Have we encouraged too many to go, and have we got enough recruits to fill up? Owing to the good state of employment, I think just a little too many have gone—not much; it is a matter of a very small percentage—but that is why a Supplementary Estimate is necessary, because rather more have gone than my military advisers, who watch the recruiting market with great care and have figures of a great many years to go upon, have estimated, because no one could have foreseen the remarkable state of employment which prevailed last year. Therefore I anticipate, though I must not be taken as making a prophecy on the subject, that we shall have been too optimistic with regard to the attractions of the Army both for keeping the men there and for enlisting them, and that we shall be a few thousand short on this business—not many, I trust—but I think, owing to the coincidence of the wonderful state of employment and the necessity for promoting an efflux in order to get in recruits, we shall probably be a little short.

Major ARCHER-SHEE

Do I understand that the number sent to the Reserve is made good by the number of recruits who are being entered to take their place? Is the number of recruits who have entered equal to the number of men sent to the Reserve, so that the amount of pay is the same; or has there been a large number of recruits, and, if so, why is there no mention of repayment?

Colonel SEELY

I am afraid the two do not quite balance. It is not a serious matter. It will be a small percentage on the total. If the two do not balance, it will appear when we come to the Army Estimates where every penny of the money has gone. The deficit we have now on one side is owing to the extraordinary efflux. As to hay, I am afraid I cannot help the Noble Lord (Marquess of Tullibardine) much in his speeches in the country, for I think it is the fact that practically all the hay was British this year. That was not a change of policy. It was because we found British hay which could be procured was best and cheapest.

Sir C. HUNTER

What about the Colonies?

Colonel SEELY

My hon. Friend, having been actually called to order on that subject, thinks perhaps that I may be permitted to say what he was not permitted to ask. The particular point he raised is one I do not wish to reply to. But what was in order was the question where these sums came from. They came from Ceylon, Mauritius, Hong Kong, the Straits Settlements and Malta.

Mr. JAMES HOPE

It is difficult to accept as final or conclusive the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to insurance. He says the Government instructed his Department not to enter the item because they might be turned out of office, and a new Prime Minister might frame a drastic Insurance Act which would not include this item at all. It is a little difficult to suppose that the Government did not frame the Estimates long enough to pass the Appropriation Act. It is not a question of getting an Estimate only in the year. It would have done quite well in August to have an item of this kind, and surely, when that is within a few days of getting the Appropriation Act, it could have been put off until then. They would then have been in a position to say whether they were going to work the Insurance Act which was to come into operation on 15th July. But as a matter of fact this was an agreed provision, and whatever else might have been altered, this would not have been altered. I remember my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans) really arranged this charge with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Colonel SEELY

In justice to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, who is absent, I have to say that he would protest if it was said that it was an agreed provision, because he wanted better terms.

Mr. J. HOPE

No doubt he wanted better terms, but agreed to take what he could get. That makes my case all the stronger. If he had got his way, there would have been a further Estimate. It is idle for the right hon. Gentleman to protest that if another Government had come into power, this £50,000 would not have appeared on the Estimate.

Colonel SEELY

I do not wish the House to be under any misapprehension. Had the Act not come into full operation, the sum would not have been required. The claim made by some hon. Members was that the soldier should not be included in the Act at all, and if the Leader of the Opposition had had to amend the Act, he might have exempted the soldier.

Mr. J. HOPE: The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester wanted more. Really I would have supposed that this item would not have been left until August. Whether passed or not, it was part of the policy of the Treasury to conceal this from the House. I think before the right hon. Gentleman offers an explanation again he had better go back to the Treasury and ask what they did mean.

Major ARCHER-SHEE: I accompanied the hon. Member to the Treasury before these provisions for insurance in the Army were brought before the House. Therefore he was in communication with the Treasury on the matter beforehand. I know also that the hon. Member for Colchester moved two Amendments very largely increasing the amount to be paid by the Government with reference specially to the Army. I myself moved an Amendment in favour of the Government paying the whole contribution. I also moved another Amendment with reference to the Army Reserve, to provide that the Government should pay the portion for the insurance of men in the Army Reserve. There was no doubt that any alteration made would be in the direction rather of an increase than a decrease.

Question put, "That a sum not exceeding £247,900 be granted to His Majesty for said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 78; Noes, 234.

Division No. 588.]	AYES.	[5.55 p.m
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.	Newman, John R. P.
Amery, L. C. M. S	Falle, Bertram Godfrey	Newton, Harry Kottingham
Anstruther-Gray, Major William	Fell, Arthur	Nield, Herbert
Baird, John Lawrence	Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes	Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)	O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B.(Antrim, Mid)
Barnston, Harry	Gibbs, George Abraham	Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.
Barrie, H. T.	Gilmour, Captain John	Parkes, Ebenezer
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)	Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)	Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Peto, Basil Edward
Beresford, Lord Charles	Greene, Walter Raymond	Remnant, James Farquharson
Bird, Alfred	Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)	Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)
Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith	Hamersley, Alfred St. George	Sanders, Robert Arthur
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)	Sandys, G. J.
Bull, Sir William James	Hewins, William Albert Samuel	Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Burn, Colonel C. R.	Hills, John Waller	Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)
Butcher, John George	Hohier, Gera[...]d Fitzroy	Talbot, Lord E.
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred	Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)	Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)
Cassel, Felix	Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)	Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Down, North)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Hunt, Rowland	Tullibardine, Marquess of
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)	Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)	Valentia, Viscount
Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)	Jessel, Captain H. M.	White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Clyde, J. Avon	Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)	Locker-Lampson, G. (Sailsbury)	Yate, Colonel C. E.
Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian	Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee
Dalrymple, Viscount	Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Major Archer-Shee and Major Willoughby.
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott	Mildmay, Francis Bingham
NOES.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	O'Doherty, Philip
Acland, Francis Dyke	Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry	O Dowd, John
Addison, Dr. C.	Hayden, John Patrick	O'Grady, James
Alden, Percy	Hayward, Evan	O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)
Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)	Hazleton, Richard	O'Malley, William
Allen. Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry	Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.	Henry, Sir Charles	O'Shee, James John
Baker, H. T. (Accrington)	Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)	O'Sullivan, Timothy
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)	Higham, John Sharp	Outhwaite, R, L.
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)	Hinds, John	Palmer, Godfrey Mark
Barnes, G. N.	Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.	Parker, James (Halifax)
Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)	Hodge, John	Parry, Thomas H.
Beale, Sir William Phipson	Hogg, David C.	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Beauchamp, Sir Edward	Hogge, James Myles	Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Beck, Arthur Cecil	Holmes, Daniel Turner	Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)
Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)	Hope, John Deans (Haddington)	Phillips, John (Longford, S.)
Bentham, G. J.	Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)	Pointer, Joseph
Bethell, Sir J. H.	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Birrell, Rt. Hon Augustine	Hughes, S. L.	Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Boland, John Pius	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus	Pringle, William M. R.
Booth, Frederick Handel	Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)	Radford, G. H.
Brady, Patrick Joseph	Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)	Raphael, Sir Herbert H.
Bryce, J. Annan	Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)	Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)
Burke, E. Haviland-	Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	Reddy, M.
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)	Jowett, F. W.	Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)	Joyce, Michael	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)	Keating, Matthew	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)	Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)
Chancellor, H. G.	Kilbride, Denis	Robertson, Sir Scott (Bradford)
Chapple, Dr. William Allen	King, J. (Somerset, N.)	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Clancy, John Joseph	Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon,S.Molton)	Robinson, Sidney
Clough, William	Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)	Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)	Lardner, James Carrige Rushe	Roche, Augustine (Louth)
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)	Rose, Sir Charles Day
Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.	Leach, Charles	Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Levy, Sir Maurice	Scanlan, Thomas
Cotton, William Francis	Lewis, John Herbert	Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)
Crawshay-Williams, Eliot	Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.
Crooks, William	Lundon, Thomas	Sheehy, David
Crumley, Patrick	Lyell, Charles Henry	Sherwell, Arthur James
Cullinan, John	Lynch, A. A.	Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook
Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)	Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)	McGhee, Richard	Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)	MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)	Snowden, Philip
Dawes, J. A.	Macpherson, James Ian	Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert
Dickinson, W. H.	MacVeagh, Jeremlah	Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)
Donelan, Captain A.	M'Callum, Sir John M.	Sutherland, J. E.
Doris, William	McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Sutton, John E.
Duffy, William J.	M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Lei[...]cs.)	Tennant, Harold John
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs.,Spalding)	Thorne, William (West Ham)
Falconer, James	M`Micking, Major Gilbert	Toulmin, Sir George
Farrell, James Patrick	Markham, Sir Arthur Basil	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson	Marshall, Arthur Harold	Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Ffrench, Peter	Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.	Verney, Sir Harry
Flavin, Michael Joseph	Meagher, Michael	Wadsworth, J.
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd	Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Gill, A. H.	Millar, James Duncan	Wardie, George J.
Ginnell, Laurence	Molloy, Michael	Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Gladstone, W. G. C.	Molteno, Percy Alport	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Glanville, H. J.	Mond, Sir Alfred M.	Watt, Henry Anderson
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Money, L. G. Chlozza	Webb, H.
Goldstone, Frank	Mooney, John J.	White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)
Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)	Morgan, George Hay	White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)
Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)	Morrell, Philip	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Greig, Col. J. W.	Morison, Hector	Whitehouse, John Howard
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
Griffith, Ellis Jones	Muldoon, John	Whyte, A. F. (Perth)
Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke)	Munro, R.	Wiles, Thomas
Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset. E.)	Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.	Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)	Needham, Christopher T.	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Hackett, John	Neilson, Francis	Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)	Nolan, Joseph	Young, William (Perthshire, E.)
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Norton, Captain Cecil W.	Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)	Nugent, Sir Walter Richard
Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Original Question put, and agreed to.