§ 1. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £3,281,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Staff for Engineer Services, and Expenditure for Royal Engineer Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and Abroad (including Purchases), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1902."
§ SIR ARTHUR HAYTER () Walsall
made an appeal to the Secretary of State for War to make a change in the direction of decentralisation in regard to allowing general officers commanding districts a further discretion in utilising savings under one head of expenditure for works and repairs in another class without special reference to the War Office. The right hon. Gentleman declared himself in favour of this principle. He hoped that they might be allowed to make savings on those Votes, and apply them to other works in their own district without any further reference to the War Office. In answer to a question the Secretary of State for War had said that he was in favour of granting more departmental power to the generals commanding districts. He should be extremely disappointed if the right hon. Gentleman did not take this opportunity of carrying out his own proposal to give commanding officers the opportunity of managing their own Votes, and devoting the savings effected to the maintenance of other works in their district.
§ MR. COURTENAY WARNER () Staffordshire, Lichfield
asked for an explanation of the increased expenditure in respect of the military prison at Aldershot, and of the extension of the balloon factory. It was doubtful 1166 whether balloons were any use, and from what he had seen in the papers balloons had not been the success which was anticipated. He had heard from officers in the Army that the balloons had failed in their object in South Africa. He wished to know why there had been an increase in the expenditure on the military prison at Aldershot, because it was already a big building. He pointed out that £2,600 was to be spent in the Cork district for racks and shelves for the uniforms and accoutrements of the Militia; why was so large a sum necessary? He wished to know, also, why £2,000 was being spent only to make Templemore barracks fit for temporary occupation; when the new hospital at Portsmouth would be completed; why it was necessary to increase the Vote for mobilisation stores, clothing, etc., for the Army Service Corps transport reservists? With regard to Gibraltar, the Secretary of State for War had promised that there should be more accommodation provided for officers' wives there. He had been told that a married officer could not get a house upon any terms at Gibraltar. They were told that houses were actually being built, but he had been informed this year that nothing of the kind had been done. This was an important matter, because there would now be a very great increase in the number of married men requiring accommodation, because the garrison regiments were being sent out there. The same arguments also applied to Malta, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give him an answer upon this point. They knew from past experience that they could not trust the War Office to spend the money upon what it was put down for, and the War Office always gave them to understand that the money was wanted for something which was quite different to the real state of things.
§ MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE () Bristol, E.
pointed out that the vote of £21,000 for incidental expenses of the War Department, lands and property, including working expenses, and sewage farms, at Aldershot and Sandhurst, had increased from £12,900, at which figure it stood last year. He understood that in the last Parliament there was an interesting discussion about the management of the 1167 sewage farm at Aldershot, and that then the Financial Secretary said that he preferred butter made on that sewage farm to any other butter in the kingdom. Perhaps the present Financial Secretary preferred his butter made elsewhere. However, he imagined some other people must share this taste for more or less sewage butter, as the vote had been increased by £8,000, or 75 per cent. of the original Vote. He wished to know what arrangements were to be made for the efficient draining and sewerage of the new barracks to be erected on Salisbury Plain, not far from the village of Ludgershall. He put a question to the Secretary of State for War upon the subject not long ago, and the right hon. Gentleman assured him that, although he was not personally conversant with the subject, it would receive his careful attention. The Government had arranged to spend about £1,500,000 close to this village, and the present condition of the place was insanitary, and the water supply extremely limited. If close by they were going to dump down great barracks, without providing an efficient drainage system, very serious injury would be inflicted on the people there, and also upon the finances of the county of Wiltshire. That county had a right to consideration at the hands of the War Office, because in all the southern counties of England they had taken special care to provide for the efficient sanitation of their counties by appointing a county medical officer of health. Having taken proper care to provide for the proper sanitation of the county of Wiltshire, he thought they were entitled to say to the War Office that they had no right to place a large body of men in their midst without providing that the health of the county should not be injured by such action. He thought they ought to have some explanation as to why this great increase of expenditure was necessary, With regard to the item for the survey of defensive positions, he wished to know whether they were at home or abroad, and if abroad by whom were the surveys to be carried out.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE () Wiltshire, Cricklade
thought he would be consulting the convenience of the Committee if he took this opportunity 1168 of stating very briefly the points he wished to put before the Secretary of State for War, rather than by moving a reduction. His hon. friend who had just sat down had called attention to a very important matter affecting the county with which he was particularly connected. The building operations alluded to at this small town were likely to extend almost to another Aldershot, and he wished to call attention to the serious damage done to the roads in some of the southern counties by the enormous traffic consequent on the purchase of Salisbury Plain by the Government. This was a matter that affected more counties than one. No Member of Parliament representing any of these counties had any desire whatever to put forward any extortionate claims, or to try to make profit for the local ratepayers at the expense of the War Office. He fully admitted that, in many ways in the near future, and still more perhaps in the more distant future, the large expenditure by the War Office in the purchase of Salisbury Plain would be of very great advantage to the local ratepayers, but that time had not come yet. At the present time they were only sufferers by the cause referred to. They were sufferers in a pecuniary way from having to spend large sums of money on roads consequent upon the enormous damage done by the traffic, and especially through haulage by steam vehicles belonging to contractors in the employment of the War Office. He would not take up the time of the Committee by going into details, as these were matters of local interest. What he was anxious to argue on behalf of the southern counties was a question of principle. He was anxious to obtain some assurance that the Government was not going to protect itself behind the technical rights of the Crown, which would entitle it to refuse to meet a claim if made by the county councils and local bodies. If these enormous works had been built by a company or private individual, or if it was the case of some great landowner spending a great amount of money in the neighbourhood and injuring the roads, of course, under the extraordinary traffic clauses of an Act passed in 1878 the county council could take the company 1169 or landowner into a court of law, and obtain a decision either for or against their claim. But the Crown could defend itself by refusing to be sued. He fully believed the War Office would treat the counties in a fair and honourable manner. This was not a claim with regard to military manœuvres. There had been a long correspondence between the War Office and the counties of Hampshire, Wiltshire, and Dorsetshire with regard to the military manœuvres, and the claim made was recognised up to a point. That controversy was now entirely closed. His case now related to the financial year just closed, and to the estimates of Wiltshire and the neighbouring counties for the financial year on which they had entered. He desired to put the claim with the most extreme moderation, and to add that the county authorities concerned fully realised that there might be a distinction between what might be called the increase of ordinary damage to the roads through the purchase by the War Office of Salisbury Plain, and that extraordinary damage which had been done in the last financial year by the complete destruction of some of their roads by five or six steam machines hauling enormous loads of brick, iron, and timber over them. There were five steam engines at work, each going on a short mileage no less than three times a day. The result was that several roads abundantly sufficient to carry the ordinary traffic of the district—roads on which bicyclists had travelled for many years with great pleasure—had now been completely destroyed, and had become impassable. He had in his possession photographs which were taken last winter showing that these roads were completely destroyed. Anyone looking at the photographs would doubt if roads had ever been there. He was told there was a risk of the answer being given that the claim ought to be made against the contractor employed by the War Office and not against the War Office itself. He demurred to that. The point had been before the law courts in a case where Epsom County Council sued the London County Council. He had taken considerable pains to ascertain the legal aspects of the case. He thought it had now been practically settled that 1170 the contractor was not the person against whom the injured authority ought to go, but the person behind the contractor, who was employing him. In this case it was the War Office; but if they went to the War Office they were met with the risk of being told that the War Office represents the Crown, and if they went to the contractor they would be told that the courts of law had decided against the view that he was liable, and that they could not go against him. They might be told that, the Crown having to build these military huts, there would be an increase in the rateable value in future, but he need not remind the Committee that Crown property was not liable to rates. The counties therefore could not expect a single penny in that way. The Crown generally had consented to give a payment in aid and in lieu of rates, but that payment was not made regularly or at stated periods. He had done his best to ascertain from the parochial authorities to whom such payment would be made whether anything had been paid, but he understood that as yet they had not received any payment in aid. When Salisbury Plain was purchased by the Government there was a long correspondence with the War Office as to what was to happen if the ordinary land in the vicinity were injured in value. In some cases the agricultural land had fallen in value, and the War Office treated the county authorities in a fair and courteous manner. An arrangement was entered into with the Wiltshire County Council which amounted to this. The War Office undertook that they would accept the rateable value of all these hereditaments at the figure at which they stood at the time of the purchase, and if the local ratepayers stood to lose by the arrangement the local authorities would be recouped. That arrangement had not been altogether successfully carried out. He believed that was more or less admitted by the War Office. He had had some conversation on the subject with the former Financial Secretary to the War Office, who explained to him that certain unforeseen difficulties had arisen. He was making no complaint, but he wished to point out that Wiltshire and the neighbouring counties had been, on account of unavoidable circumstances in all these matters, hardly treated in the 1171 way of keeping up the rating value. He hoped the War Office would approach the matter in the way he had indicated, and not treat it as a purely technical one. He asked them to approach the question from the point of view of the broad equities, and if they did so there would be every desire on the part of the county authorities to meet them in a similar spirit.
§ THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,) Lancashire, Westhoughton
Perhaps I may be allowed to reply to the questions put by the two last speakers. In regard to the question of the hon. Member for the Cricklade Division, the circumstances are as follow: A meeting was held yesterday between the Treasury valuer and the representatives of the local district boards. He asked anybody to meet him who had any grievance to urge. They came and stated their cases. He put further questions to them, and asked for further information, which they have promised to provide, and when this is received he is going into the case thoroughly. This is a very big question, which involves not one particular district only. It may mean a very great change, and it could not be gone into rashly, nor could any assurance be given on the spur of the moment. The only thing I can tell the noble Lord is that when this report is received at the War Office we shall be perfectly prepared to go into it with the view and the hope of dealing fairly with the neighbourhood. We will certainly not assume at all a non possumus attitude. That is as far as I can possibly go on such a large question as this is. With regard to the question asked by the hon. and gallant Member for East Bristol, who said the increase of £8,100 was due entirely to the sewage farm at Aldershot, I have to state that that is not quite the case. The extraordinary expenditure on the sewage farm is £1,500, and that was due to the necessity of increasing it owing to the greater number of troops in the station. That amount includes the apparatus and the necessary stock, and a little more land for the purposes of the farm. The rest of the expenditure is for the upkeep of the property which has been acquired on Salisbury Plain, and which now comes on to 1172 the annual Estimates. The hon. Member asked me with regard to the drainage and sewerage of the new barracks near Ludgershall. I am afraid I am not myself conversant with the district, and I cannot say what plans are to be adopted. When any troops are placed there by the Government everything that possibly can be done will be done to secure not only their health, but the health of the neighbourhood. I cannot give him any definite information as to the plans which are to be put in execution for this purpose. With regard to the incidental expenses, these include the expenses of men sent to make preliminary investigations for any defence works that may be contemplated. I think I have answered all the questions the hon. Member asked.
§ MR. KENYON () Lancashire, Bury
said he understood that the ordinary pressure of boilers at most of the Government works was only 50 lb. That meant a great extravagance in coal, and he was certain considerable economy could be effected in this matter. The subject was very well worth the attention of the noble Lord. He believed twice or three times the required quantity of coal was being used.
§ MR. NANNETTI () Dublin, College Green
called attention to the way in, which the work at barracks in Dublin was being carried out by the contractor, and asked whether any deductions had been made when the contractor employed boy labour instead of adult labour. His complaint was that of fourteen persons employed eight were boys. He presumed that the Government in giving out contracts calculated that they would get value for their money. He had in his hand letters received from the War Office in reply to the complaints made by various societies in Dublin on this matter. An inquiry was promised by the War Office, but when it took place the members of the societies directly interested were ignored altogether, although they asked to be heard. He thought when contracts of this sort were to be given out by the Government they should be advertised in the Labour Gazette, so that the particular trades interested would have an opportunity of keeping their eyes on them and seeing that the terms 1173 of the fair wages resolution of this House were carried out. Was the noble Lord aware that this very contractor had an action brought against him by one of his workmen who was doing plastering work, and that the defence made by the contractor was that the man was only a labourer? He could not see that labourers had a right to do skilled work the Government was paying for. The contractor should be made to feel his position in the matter. He admitted that a certain number of boys should be employed on the contract work, but his contention was that the contractor had no right to employ an extraordinary number of boys and to discharge regular workmen.
§ COLONEL LEGGE () St. George's, Hanover Square
called attention to the condition of Ballincollig Barracks, in the Cork district. They were old barracks originally built for infantry, extended for artillery, and occupied for some time past by cavalry. There was a want of proper accommodation for the soldiers, the paving was bad, and the light was bad, there being nothing but oil lamps. It was impossible for the men to groom their horses properly in the morning during the winter months. The barracks were swarming with rats, but that was not an uncommon thing. He believed the condition of these barracks was by no means a solitary instance. If we wanted recruits it was of the greatest importance that proper attention should be paid to the matter of accommodation. He was perfectly aware that some of the barracks in the United Kingdom, such as those at Alder-shot, were model barracks. Foreign attachés and Members of Parliament were taken down there, and the barracks were shown off, but it was the barracks in out-of-the-way places he wished to call attention to. Bad barracks made the men discontented, and it was one of the things that deterred those from entering the service who might otherwise be inclined to do so.
§ MR. GODDARD () Ipswich
said some explanation ought to be given in regard to the large increase in salaries for Engineers' services. The number of men employed had gone up from 712 last year to 779. He could understand that in 1174 times of pressure, when the country was at war, every department of the Army probably required more men. There was this large increase on the permanent staff, notwithstanding the fact that the temporary staff had gone up from 3,000 to 8,700. They did not know in the least what these surveyors were getting, or whether the rate which had been fixed for these particular services had been adhered to. He thought this increase was a very important and very large one; and in view of the fact that more than once during the last few weeks they had heard the expression that they ought to see whether the country got good value for its money, he would move the reduction of this item by £1,000.
§ Motion made, and question proposed "That Item A (Salaries of the Staff for Engineer Services), be reduced by £1,000."—(Mr. Goddard.)
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,) Surrey, Guildford
said that the staff for the engineer services had certainly risen on account of necessary work undertaken; and in connection with the war additional clerks, and also additional military foremen of works, had been rendered necessary in the preparation of hutting accommodation for the troops in South Africa, and in repairs to barracks. The hon. Member must remember that all these questions were settled by warrant, and that the rate of salaries was carefully overhauled, not only by the Treasury, but by the Public Accounts Committee. The hon. Member must therefore feel that his criticisms were entirely uncalled for.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE () Carnarvon Boroughs
said that he wished to ask a question in regard to the refugee camps in South Africa.
§ MR. LAMBERT () Devonshire, South Molton
said he wanted to know whether commissions were paid on the work done, or on the value of the work done? If the commissions were paid on the value of the work done, it was a most extravagant system.
§ MR. BRODRICK
said that the commission paid generally was 5 per cent., 1175 but in connection with the work on Salisbury Plain an increase had to be made in the agent's salary because the work was not sufficiently remunerative.
§ Original Question again proposed.1176
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 52; Noes, 119. (Division List No. 208.).1175
|Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)||Hayne, Rt. Hn. Chas. Seale-||O'Malley, William|
|Allen, C. P. (Glouc., Stroud)||Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Bell, Richard||Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Brigg; John||Joyce, Michael||Price, Robert John|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Leamy, Edmund||Reddy, M.|
|Caldwell, James||Leng, Sir John||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Lloyd-George, David||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Clancy, John Joseph||M'Govern, T.||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Cogan, Denis J.||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire|
|Craig, Robert Hunter||Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport||Sullivan, Donal|
|Delany, William||Murphy, J.||Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.|
|Dillon, John||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Wason Eugene (Clackmannan|
|Doogan, P. C.||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Weir, James Galloway|
|Dunn, Sir William||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Ffrench, Peter||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Mr. Goddard and Mr. Lambert.|
|Grant, Corrie||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)|
|Hayden, John Patrick||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N|
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex F.||Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn||Parker, Gilbert|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)||Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley|
|Allsopp, Hon. George||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||Platt-Higgins, Frederick|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Goschen, Hon. George J.||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Arrol, Sir William||Green, Walford D (Wednesbury||Purvis, Robert|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsb'ry||Renshaw, Charles Bine|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A J. (Manc'r)||Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.)||Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge-|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds||Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lrd G. (Midd'x||Rolleston, Sir John F. L.|
|Bigwood, James||Hamilton, Marq. of (L'donderry||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Blundell, Col. Henry||Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.||Sackville, Col. S. G Stopford-|
|Bowles, Capt. H. F (.Middlesex)||Harris, Frederick Leverton||Scott, Sir S (Marylebone, W.)|
|Brassey, Albert||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Seton-Karr, Henry|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford),|
|Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Howard, John (Kent Faversh'm||Sinclair, Louis (Romford)|
|Brymer, William Ernest||Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil||Skewes-Cox, Thomas|
|Bull, William James||John stone, Heywood (Sussex)||Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury)||Spear, John Ward|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Law, Andrew Bonar||Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)|
|Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)||Lawson, John Grant||Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Stroyan, John|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.||Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.||Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier|
|Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r||Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.)||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Chapman, Edward||Lowe, Francis William||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Charrington, Spencer||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)||Valentia, Viscount|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Macdona, John Cumming||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Warr, Augustus Frederick|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.||Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Ta'nt'n|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akeis-||M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.)||Williams, Rt. Hn J Powell- (Birm|
|Doxford, Sir William Theodore||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Duke, Henry Edward||Manners, Lord Cecil||Wills, Sir Frederick|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.||Martin, Richard Biddulph||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Finch, George H.||Molesworth, Sir Lewis||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Younger, William|
|Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.||Morrell, George Herbert|
|Fletcher, Sir Henry||Mount, William Arthur||TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Forster, Henry William||Nicholson, William Graham|
|Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.||Nicol, Donald Ninian|
§ £21,000 which had taken place in the working expenses of the sewage farms. He confessed that if he had to do with these farms he would discharge a 1177 manager who raised the expenditure by something like 70 per cent.
§ LORD STANLEY
said that the increase was due to the size of the sewage farm at Aldershot and the growth of the large camp. Other items in the increase were owing to taking over a farm at Salisbury Plain, to fencing, repairs, and maintenance of large properties at Salisbury and elsewhere. If he found that there was any waste of money which could be saved he would be only too glad to stop it.
§ MR. EUGENE WASON () Clackmannan and Kinross
asked whether these sewage farms could not be worked with profit for agricultural purposes.
§ MR. LAMBERT
said that there must have been some mistake in the matter, and that the noble Lord had not given all the facts. The upkeep expense of the estate was enormous. Of course, they knew very well, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, that the sums were small, but it was the small sums that mounted up. He had seen Estimates slip through very easily, and it was owing to the lack of vigilant attention on the part of hon. Members that the Estimates increased. He thought it was their duty to call to account the officials who made out the Estimates. He could not consent to the large increase in the Vote before the
§ Committee, and he begged to move the reduction of this item by £100.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item D (Incidental Expenses of War Department, Lands, etc.) be reduced by £100."—(Mr. Lambert.)
§ MR. BRODRICK
said that the increase had arisen in consequence of certain charges for fencing and for buildings on Salisbury Plain. The hon. Member was quite in error in supposing that he objected to criticism in small sums. What he took exception to was that, having explained the items, the hon. Member thought it necessary to criticise them again.
§ MR. ALLEN () Gloucestershire, Stroud
said that the right hon. Gentleman had referred to fences on Salisbury Plain, on which a large amount of money had been spent, but he never saw fences of any kind or description on Salisbury Plain. He could not see the necessity for that expenditure. As regarded the farmhouses, a considerable number of them were allowed to fall into disrepair, and were not used at all. He thought some better explanation ought to have been given.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 52; Noes, 115. (Division List No. 209.)1179
|Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)||Grant, Corrie||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)|
|Allen, C. P. (Glouc., Stroud)||Hayden, John Patrick||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon N-|
|Bell, Richard||Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-||O'Malley, William|
|Brigg, John||Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir A. D.||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Caldwell, James||Joyce, Michael||Price, Robert John|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Leamy, Edmund||Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Leng, Sir John||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Cogan, Denis J.||Lloyd-George, David||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Cremer, William Randal||M'Govern, T.||Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh'e|
|Delany; William||Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)||Sullivan, Donal|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Dillon, John||Murphy, J.||Weir, James Galloway|
|Doogan, P. C.||Nannetti, Joseph P.||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Dunn, Sir William||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)|
|Ffrench, Peter||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Mr. Lambert and Mr. Eugene Wason.|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||O' Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||O' Connor, James (Wicklow, W.|
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex F.||Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Brymer, William Ernest|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Bigwood, James||Bull, William James|
|Allsopp, Hon. George||Blundell, Colonel Henry||Cautley, Henry Strother|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Bowles, Capt. B. F. (Middlesex)||Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire|
|Arrol, Sir William||Brassey, Albert||Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds||Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Chapman, Edward|
|Charrington, Spencer||Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury)||Rolleston, Sir John F. L.|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Law, Andrew Bonar||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Lawson, John Grant||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-|
|Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S||Seton-Karr, Henry|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore||Lowe, Francis William||Sinclair, Louis (Romford)|
|Duke, Henry Edward||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Skewes-Cox, Thomas|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)||Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)|
|Finch, George H.||Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth||Spear, John Ward|
|Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.||Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)|
|Fisher, William Hayes||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool||Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart|
|Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon||M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)||Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier|
|Fletcher, Sir Henry||M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb'rgh W.||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Forster, Henry William||M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.||Manners, Lord Cecil||Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward|
|Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn||Martin; Richard Biddulph||Valentia, Viscount|
|Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)||Molesworth, Sir Lewis||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Goschen, Hon. George Joachim||Moon, Edw. Robert Pacy||Warr, Augustus Frederick|
|Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'y||Morrell, George Herbert||Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (T'nt'n)|
|Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)||Mount, William Arthur||Williams, Rt. Hn. J. Powell- (Bir.|
|Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||Nicholson, William Graham||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G. (Mid'x||Nicol, Donald Ninian||Wills, Sir Frederick|
|Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'derry||Parker, Gilbert||Wilson, A. S. (York, E. R.)|
|Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.||Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert W.||Wilson, John (Glasgow).|
|Harris, Frederick Leverton||Platt-Higgins, Frederick||Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-|
|Hay, Hon. Claude George||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Heaton, John Henniker||Purvis, Robert||TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside||Rasch, Major Frederic Carne|
|Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm||Renshaw, Charles Bine|
|Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil||Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Staly bridge|
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said he desired to call attention to Item 74 in the Vote, which he understood to refer to civil engineers, for the reason that "regular" engineers had already been dealt with tinder another head. He desired to have some information with regard to the accommodation of the refugee camps which had been founded in various parts of the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony. Reports had come to this country which reflected the greatest discredit upon those responsible for the condition of these camps, and he thought something more should be done for the comfort of the unfortunate refugees. The figures given by the Secretary for War disclosed a really appalling state of things. There was a terrible rate of mortality among the children. The right hon. Gentleman had said that from February the number of children that had died was 261 out of 1,100 in the camps. Was that from the 1st of February or the end of February, and up to what date? These unfortunate people were carted across the country to these refugee camps, and when they arrived there was no accommodation for them; they were huddled together 1180 in huts or tents, and when rain came these places were swamped, and these wretched people were often obliged to be in the wet, and the result was this terrible mortality. The answer given by the right hon. Gentleman seemed to indicate that from a certain date in February up to 21st March 261 children had died. If that was so the death-rate among them was something like 250 per thousand. That must be due to the fact that there was insufficient shelter at these camps. He did not suggest that the Government was altogether to blame. The camps were set up in a great hurry, but these people had now to face the winter, and they were greatly dependent on the charity of America, Holland, and other countries to keep body and soul together, and that in the refugee camps under our flag. Whatever might be done with regard to the men, it was beneath the dignity of a great country like this to inflict any hardship on women and children. He made no insinuation that this was done intentionally, and he was prepared to admit that our soldiers would go any length to prevent the people incurring these hardships, but there was a duty on the part of the Government in this matter. He desired to know what steps were being 1181 taken to stop this appalling mortality and to repair the deficiency of accommodation. Lord Kitchener had allowed independent witnesses to visit these camps as far as Bloemfontein, but no one had been allowed to visit the camps in the Transvaal. From that he was afraid it must be assumed that the state of things in the Transvaal was worse. He begged to move the reduction of the vote by £100.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Items L, M, N (New Works, etc.) be reduced by £100, in respect of Engineer Services in the Field of South Africa. "—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
§ MR. DILLON
said he felt grateful to the hon. Member for raising this question before the adjournment. It seemed to him a horrible thing to adjourn for the vacation without endeavouring to extract from the Government some definite statement upon this subject. The hon. Member for Carnarvon had pointed out that Lord Kitchener had; allowed independent witnesses to examine these camps; but he wanted to point out this extraordinary matter, that while the right hon. Gentleman in this House had more than once assured the House that the women and children were comfortable and well cared for, it was perfectly plain that Lord Kitchener, even in the case of the witnesses who went up as far as Bloemfontein, would not allow them to publish anything of what they saw. So that while there had percolated through different channels details of the accommodation of the women and children in these camps, and while they heard the figures, which he hesitated to believe without explanation, so horrible a state of things did they show, the House was entirely without any account from the witnesses who had been allowed to visit these places by Lord Kitchener. He wished to know whether the ordinary comforts which common humanity would dictate were being allowed to these unwilling inmates. Why should not Lord Kitchener not allow these independent persons to give expression to what they witnessed? When people went to these camps for humane objects why were they not allowed to publish a statement of what they had seen? The Committee were in this 1182 position: they had nothing whatever to go upon except these letters from Dutch people and the figures of the right hon. Gentleman. He had himself received letters from Holland declaring that women and children were huddled together in cattle-trucks and brought down to these various camps under circumstances of great hardship. If the statements in these letters were true no language could be too strong to denounce such atrocities. He should have thought that when such stories were in circulation the Government, in their own interests, would have sent out charitable people to visit the camps and give the public an impartial account of the actual state of affairs. The right hon. Gentleman declared that these camps were camps of refuge in the true sense of the word, and that the people were free to come and go as they chose. An answer given a few days previously, however, threw a certain amount of doubt on that statement, because it was then stated that the people in these camps could visit even the neighbouring towns only by permission and with a pass. He desired to know whether the people were really free to come and go as they chose, or whether, as he had heard, the camp at Port Elizabeth was surrounded with barbed wire and guarded by sentries, and was in fact a prison. Over and over again, in reply to questions with regard to the condition of these camps, the right hon. Gentleman had said he was unable to give any information. Would the right hon. Gentleman give the Committee his own views with regard to the figures of the mortality in these camps? If there was any doubt as to their significance, would he cable at once to Cape Colony and Pretoria, insisting upon some accurate statement being sent? Further, why did the Government object to allow humane people, who had taken no part in the controversies with regard to the war—of whom there were hundreds of thousands in this country—who would be ready to start at once to go out and visit these camps, to organise relief, and to write home to the Press the honest truth in regard to the matter? If, as Lord Kitchener said, the women and children were well looked after, was it not better that it should be known? 1183 On the other hand, if these accounts were true, he did not believe there was a man in the House who would not be glad that the truth should come out in order that things might be remedied.
§ MR. BRODRICK
I am perfectly ready, whether on this Vote or any other, to enter into any question which can properly be brought within the compass of the Vote, and as money is being taken for engineers' services, and it is out of my power to say that engineers' services in South Africa may not have been used in some way in the erection of these camps, I cannot say that a discussion on these camps is outside the Vote. At the same time, for the convenience of Parliament. I would venture to call attention to a practice which I think is growing, and which is in itself undesirable from the point of view of the House of Commons—the practice of bringing forward, on Votes on which perhaps they might not be anticipated, serious questions of this kind without any notice at all. I speak entirely from the point of view of the convenience of the House. It is perfectly immaterial to me when they are brought on, but I cannot come down here with the whole of the archives of the War Office stacked in a room so that I can call for or produce them. Nor is it possible—and I make no apology for it—with the immense labour I have at present to undergo, for me to remember all the statistics I have given in reply to the thirty or forty questions addressed to me daily in the House. Therefore, it would be more advantageous to the House if, on these questions which are argued wholly upon statistics, and in regard to which, of course, it is desirable the statistics should be as accurate as possible, hon. Members would exercise a little special courtesy by giving the Minister in charge, at all events, a few hours' notice. At this particular moment I cannot for the life of me say even what the statistics are, because the only copy is in the possession of the hon. Member opposite. But I can assure the House that I am fully seized of the circumstances of these camps. I think hon. Members opposite sometimes hardly weigh the circumstances under which these camps have been established and maintained. In the first place, why are they established? 1184 To a very large extent they are established for two of three classes of persons. One class are the women and children, who are unable to maintain themselves in the present state of the country in their own dwellings, and who come into these camps for refuge, to be fed, and to have protection against Kaffirs. The second class are women and children from parts of the country which have been used as depots and halting places by Boer commandoes, and which have to be cleared out in the ordinary course of military operations. Finally, you have—notably in Cape Colony—a certain number of women and children who have been found to be in communication with the enemy, and who have had therefore to be removed from their own districts. In all these cases, we—or, rather, the military authorities, for we have given them no injunctions on this particular matter—have had to undertake these liabilities in a country in which, to a large extent, every article of food, and everything that is necessary, has to be brought up from the base. One must remember the difficulties under these circumstances of bringing, up supplies, not only for an immense force in the field, but also for 20,000 or 30,000 or 40,000 individuals who have, either placed themselves or have had to be placed under our charge. Hon. Members, of course, fall back upon the statistics which I have furnished to the House. I might perhaps say that many erroneous and unfounded inferences have been drawn in recent discussions from the absence of particular statistics. It is not possible in reply to a question to make plain the general position. The general position in the matter is this. The officers in South Africa are worked up to the extreme limit of their powers at the present time. You cannot scrutinise a variety of different items by telegraphic communications. Not a day passes but demands for information are made upon me either by Members on the other side of the House, who think the conduct of our commanders in the field may have been defective, or by Members on my own side of the House, who think the Boer leaders have shown less consideration than they might have shown towards our soldiers. All these inquiries involve statistics; 1185 they mean endless demands for returns. To supply these statistics with an army of 250,000 men in the field, scattered over an area as large as that of France and Spain together, naturally makes an extreme demand upon the powers of all our officers. For that reason it is often impossible to get for several days the reply to a simple question even by telegraphing, more especially as the officers themselves are constantly moving about in the pursuance of the campaign. So far from concealing anything, I have been giving to the House with regard to these camps the statistics as rapidly as they have come into my possession. Let the House remember the circumstances under which these camps were first formed. They were formed principally in the months of January or February. In the month of January our communications were cut by General De Wet. The incursion of General De Wet involved the diversion of a very considerable force not only from the Orange Free State, but even from the Transvaal, in order to check the advance into Cape Colony—an advance which had been so ably planned, but which we are glad to think was so well frustrated by Lord Kitchener. That involved an absolute dislocation of traffic. It was at the moment when all these troops were being moved, when every kind of store was required to be brought up, when the line was constantly being put out of action in one place or another, for eight or twelve hours at a time, causing a most hopeless congestion of traffic—it was just at this time that these camps, involving 15,000 or 20,000 people, had to be formed at different places. I believe there was no occasion on which at any of these camps food actually ran short for a single day. I do not attempt to say that the original accommodation under these circumstances was all that we should have desired. No doubt there were hardships. But war is war.
§ MR. BRODRICK
I have no doubt that in the fulness of their hearts some hon. Members believe that war can be war qua soldiers, and that war can be something other than war qua the inhabit- 1186 ants of the country. But that is impossible. There must and will be great hardships to be borne by the inhabitants of a country in which war is being carried on. But I say, further, that I do not believe there is in history any case in which an invading army has endeavoured to feed the inhabitants of the country invaded as we have done.
§ MR. BRODRICK
Of course. The supplies of the enemy are always destroyed. In every war the first thing to do is to prevent the enemy obtaining the necessary supplies and forming a base from which to make an attack. I cannot imagine a greater impeachment of Lord Kitchener than would be contained in the fact that he left the enemy the supplies with which they could advance and attack his own troops. Obviously, the first thing you have to do is to make matters as difficult for the enemy as you possibly can under the laws of war. One of the laws of war is that you have an absolute right to deprive the enemy of his supplies and anything of that sort. For the inhabitants this prolongation of a hopeless war must be a matter of hardship. We have endeavoured by all the means in our power to mitigate that hardship, by providing adequate food and, as far as possible, the necessaries of life for these people. I do not contend that the food or the accommodation in any way represents luxury. It cannot be that it should. But we have given to our prisoners and the refugees the same rations that we have given to our own soldiers in the field. We cannot do more. Every British soldier has a right to as much as is given to a prisoner or refugee. All I can say is this. I have heard from both sides; I have had a good deal of correspondence with those who have been in South Africa; I have heard of the original state of the camps being in some cases unsatisfactory, although I could not admit the justice of the deduction which the hon. Member for Carnarvon has drawn from some of the statistics; but I have heard nothing but a consensus of opinion from both sides that there has been an immense improvement in these camps as the circumstances of 1187 the war have permitted it. That is our desire. I have been asked as a last question why we do not allow the hundreds of thousands of people mentioned by the hon. Member for East Mayo to go out from this country to organise relief.
§ MR. DILLON
What I said was, Why were not some people allowed to go out from this country? I described the class from which they might be drawn, namely, those who had not taken an active part on either side in the war controversy, of whom I said there were hundreds of thousands.
§ MR. BRODRICK
Our position with regard to sending out relief of this character is this. The philanthropic people of this country are willing to subscribe money for providing necessaries for these unfortunate people who by the accidents of war have found themselves obliged to leave their homes and to collect in these camps. We are only too glad to welcome the distribution of these funds. We think that by means of local committees, on which the Dutch element can be represented, very valuable work may be done. We think that these committees should be formed inside the camps in many instances; but we are not desirous of seeing a large number of individuals going out and travelling up country, and placing themselves for this or any other purpose in a country for which at this moment we are responsible under military law. Every person who goes up has to be fed; every pound of luggage that they take means delaying something else which might be sent up for another purpose, and this on a single line of railway, crowded with stores and munitions of war, and with horses and troops going up for reliefs or other purposes. This is no exaggerated picture. The authorities even at Cape Town have issued the fullest possible injunction that nobody who is not employed in the war is welcome at this moment in South Africa. There is now an enormous population employed by the war; they have to be fed and provided for, and we are not desirous of any increase in the number. But we shall be very glad to welcome any relief which can be given by money administered by proper local committees. May I just say before I sit down that we entirely dissociate ourselves from any 1188 suggestion that we are anxious to make the circumstances of the war more onerous to the refugees than they are at present. On the contrary, we have shown by every means in our power that we desire to mitigate their lot. We desire from every point of view that these people should be well treated, and that every means should be used to mitigate their lot. But at the same time we shall not in consequence of the attacks of hon. Gentlemen opposite, or for any other reason whatever, take any step which will tend towards the prolongation of the war. We are not going to invite people who have been in communication with the enemy in the past to come where they can resume communication with the enemy again. So long as the war lasts those places which have been used as bases for military operations by the enemy or have formed resting places for commandos must be kept clear, and no argument based on the fact that this must cause suffering to the inhabitants will induce a change of policy that will cause more suffering to our own troops and prolongation of hostilities. I know that in the long run the best and most humane course which we as a Government can adopt is to take all steps within the laws of war which in the shortest possible time will tend to bring about the termination of this war, the continuation of which we all so deeply deplore.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE
thought no complaint could be made against the hon. Member for Carnarvon because he had availed himself of one of the few opportunities Members had for raising such questions. Nearly the whole time of the House and the Committee was taken up by the Government, and therefore he thought such rare opportunities as the present one might legitimately be taken advantage of to call attention to facts which under the old procedure of this House could have been brought forward in the ordinary course of business. The right hon. Gentleman had delivered a friendly lecture or sermon on the inconvenience of raising questions that might embarrass the Government, but there was a time when the right hon. Gentleman did not scruple to bring forward any question at any time and in any manner to embarrass the Government. He assured 1189 the House that he was not going to follow the bad example which the right hon. Gentleman used to set to the House in those days.
§ MR. BRODRICK
What does the noble Lord mean? Will he kindly give me the dates of the occasions he alludes to?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE
said it was in the years 1882, 1883, and 1884, when he himself held the office of Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE
said he was not speaking about foreign affairs, but about the general business of the House. He was alluding to the general conduct of those hon. Members who sat at that time on the Front Opposition Bench and upon the Opposition bench below the gangway.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE
said the right hon. Gentleman must have sat somewhere. He thought nobody had any right to complain of the hon. Member for Carnarvon for bringing forward this question under circumstances which the right hon. Gentleman would not have hesitated to have taken advantage of in past years. He desired to say, however, that although he thought the hon. Member for Carnarvon was justified in raising this subject, he would not advise a division being taken, for the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, under the circumstances, was a perfectly fair and reasonable one. The Secretary of State for War had pointed out that he had had no notice that this question was going to be brought forward, and he had told the House that it was impossible for a member of the Government in charge of a very heavily worked Department to give a full and satisfactory answer to inquiries of this kind unless he had sufficient time allowed him to obtain full information. He thought his hon. friend the Member for Carnarvon had attained his object in directing public attention to the grave facts 1190 he had stated to the House, which were undoubtedly causing a very unfavourable impression not only in many parts of this country but also abroad. There was a great deal of hostile public opinion abroad, and foreigners were too anxious to make the most of everything detrimental to this country. There could be no doubt that a painful impression had been created by stories circulated by those who were unscrupulous in the expression of feelings of hostility to this country, and we could not wholly disregard the public opinion of Europe. The answer and explanation might be summed up in the phrase of the right hon. Gentleman that horrors were the necessary accompaniments of war. He had himself been witness of such horrors when acting as commissioner at the Turkish refugee camp, when the inhabitants were driven by the Russians across the Balkans. Then, as now, he recognised that these horrors were the necessary consequences of war before which humanity felt helpless. He felt certain that an inquiry would be made, and that whatever was humanly possible would be done by the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. However much they might differ about the causes of this war, after all they were all Englishmen—[Nationalist cries of "No, no," and Ministerial laughter]—well, they were all subjects of his Majesty the King, and they believed that no British Government would desire that there should be any inhumanity or cruelty which could possibly be avoided. The right hon. Gentleman had promised that every inquiry would be made, and he had given the Committee the assurance that upon some future occasion he would be prepared to give every information on this subject. Therefore he thought the reply of the right hon. Gentleman was quite satisfactory.
§ MR. STUART WORTLEY () Sheffield, Hallam
said the noble Lord had thrown his ægis over the hon. Members below the gangway opposite to very little purpose. He himself had been a Member of the House in the period referred to by the noble Lord, and he remembered that at that time they used to challenge the Government of the day by fair votes of censure, with full notice, on their foreign policy, a thing which the 1191 present Opposition in the imperfect state of its structural organism was physically incapable of doing. The noble Lord's argument rested upon a hopeless fallacy—namely, that what was called Government time on Supply nights was Government time, and not private Members' time. Theoretically it might be so, but practically and substantially the whole of it was private Members' time, and it was because of the incapacity of the Opposition to organise themselves as an effective force in the State that such accusations as these were made in circumstances under which they could not be answered. The noble Lord had referred to foreign opinion, and yet fostered the practice of making statements of this sort under circumstances under which they could not be answered. The noble Lord had told the Committee that he had travelled abroad under Her Majesty's Commission. He, too, had travelled abroad with Her Majesty's Commission; he was in Belgium in December, when the House was sitting, and he remembered how in the Belgian newspapers everything that was said in this House by the critics of the Government was set forth in spicy paragraphs isolated from the context, so that the result should be the worst for the reputation of this country. Those spicy paragraphs were generally headed "The English painted by themselves." The noble Lord appeared to be more Welsh and more Irish than the hon. Members below the gangway, and he doubted whether he had rendered them any great service. Such was the practice to which the noble Lord had lent the protection of his high parliamentary authority. Such questions as this rested very largely on details and statistics; there was opportunity to give notice of them, and if that opportunity was not taken great injustice was done.
§ MR. CHANNING () Northamptonshire, E.
said he understood that what the House and the country were interested in, and what this discussion turned upon, was the practical question whether those refuge camps could be so conducted as to minimise the terrible sufferings of the women and children who were being forced into these camps. No one could doubt he was one of those who firmly believed that the officers who had charge 1192 of those camps had acted, and intended to act, with the utmost mercy and consideration towards the people in those camps. The fault did not lie with them. He though his hon. friend the Member for Carnarvon would be justified in pressing his Amendment, because he did not think that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman had sufficiently cleared up the matter or thrown enough light upon it. The figures of the mortality amongst the children recently admitted by the right hon. Gentleman in reply to a question were simply appalling. He was astonished to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that he was not aware of many of the facts recently disclosed, although he had had the advantage of a great deal of correspondence from persons on the spot. He wished to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he was not aware that one of the chief causes of the terrible mortality among children in these camps was the absolute impossibility of providing the fuel necessary for cooking food, and that much of the food had to be consumed in a practically raw state. The right hon. Gentleman had said the women and children were being treated as well as the British troops, and this might well be so, for they knew of the terrible sufferings of the troops in the hospitals, and that those scandals had largely been due to the failure to bring up proper supplies and equipment and to the gross mismanagement of the railway line from Cape Town to Bloemfontein.
§ MR. CHANNING
said he had listened to the speeches of the hon. Member for Westminster upon this question, and they were quite sufficient to convince him that there had been gross mismanagement. He had seen letters from officers with General Rundle's forces in one part of the campaign where those poor men were forced to fight day after day upon half a biscuit a day. No doubt this was largely due to official mismanagement and miscalculation. When this war had been so prolonged, and these poor women and children had been kept in camps in these conditions, Members had the right to challenge the right hon. Gentleman 1193 to lay before them the facts that would justify them in passing these Votes. They had a right to insist that some steps should be taken to mitigate these evils in the future. The whole cause of this trouble was that nine of these families out of ten never need have left their homes. What was to blame was that their homes had been destroyed and they had been driven out by the same ruthless policy that had brought about all this misery and human suffering.
MR. BRYN ROBERTS () Carnarvonshire, Eifion
said the Secretary of State for War had omitted to deal with one point which had been pressed on his attention—namely, the complaints that women and children were kept in the camps against their will. He hoped the omission was due to inadvertence; if not, one could only conclude that the complaints were well founded. He hoped they would be given some assurance that it was a fact that these women would be allowed to leave the camps if they chose to do so. He had been informed that a large number of these women and children would be readily taken out of the camps by Dutch sympathisers in Cape Colony, and would be provided for if they were permitted to leave the camps. He had heard complaints made that the military authorities would not permit money to be remitted to South Africa for the purpose of alleviating the hardships and miseries of the people in these camps. He hoped the Secretary of State for War would be able to give them a satisfactory assurance that all money, whether subscribed here or in Holland, would be readily transmitted for this purpose. The right hon. Gentleman had justified the existence of these camps on the ground that they were a military necessity. He had said that war was war, and always resulted in the hardships which had been brought to the attention of the Committee. He thought that was an extreme statement. He did not think refugee camps, denudation of the country, destruction of farm buildings, supplies, and standing crops were features of the Franco-German War. [An HON. MEMBER: Yes they were.] There was no removal of the inhabitants and non-combatants in that war, nor in any other European war. It was not so in the Danish War, nor in the Peninsular 1194 War. [Cries of "Yes."] The American precedent had been cited, but that was really not a case in point at all. That was fifty years ago, and he thought they would agree that humanity and civilisation had made some progress since the American Civil War. They had had within the last two years the Hague Convention, which had met in order to formulate and stereotype rules in relation to such matters as they were now discussing, which were absolutely prohibited under the rules drawn up two years ago. [Cries of "No, no."] In support of this assertion the hon. Member quoted several of the articles drawn up at the Hague Convention. There was absolutely no meaning in the sections he had read if private property could be confiscated whenever they liked. Under Article 53 of the Convention even private property which was taken for military necessity must be restored at the conclusion of peace and an indemnity paid for it. In these circumstances it was not very ingenuous for those gentlemen who knew what the rules were to say that private property could be confiscated.
MR. BRYN ROBERTS
said the hon. Gentleman delivered a speech which was irrelevant from beginning to end. He recognised that it would be impossible to allow anybody who chose to visit the camps, but there would be no inconvenience in allowing half-a-dozen or a dozen people accredited by the friends of the Dutch to go there. The hon. Gentleman had spoken as if those who asked an independent investigation of the camps wished some thousands of people to be sent, but nobody expected that even a dozen would be required. Those who asked for an independent investigation had been treated as if they suggested that the hardships endured by the people had been wantonly and willingly inflicted. Nobody had suggested anything of the kind, but what they said was that a little carelessness, a little over-attention to the necessities of war, and too little attention to the consequences attendant on the war, might have resulted in hardships. What was wanted was that the exigencies of war should not be allowed to interfere with the dictates and the calls of humanity. 1195 When we had regard to the fact that we had stolen all the private property of the combatants among the enemy, it was strange that any gentleman in this House should claim credit because we fed the women and children. If a man swindled another of his entire property it would be little credit to him if he afterwards gave a dole to the wife and family of the man he had swindled. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the causes why these people had been removed from their homes. One was that they had been in communication with the enemy. Was that a cause for removing women from their husbands, fathers, brothers, and fellow-countrymen? These women were living in their own country. They were not spies who had been removed into the refugee camps. Of course it was impossible to prevent them from getting information. He supposed that no army had ever invaded another country without being subjected to the inconvenience of the inhabitants giving information. That was part of the necessary difficulties in connection with every invasion, and because these necessary difficulties had occurred in South Africa that was given as a reason why a policy of Weylerism should be resorted to in civilised warfare.
§ MR. FULLER () Wiltshire, Westbury
said it had been admitted that great hardships existed in the refugee camps. He earnestly appealed to his hon. friend the Member for Carnarvon not to press his Amendment to a division, in view of the promise of the Secretary for War that the women and children would be properly cared for so far as the necessities of war allowed.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said he would very much like to respond to the appeal not to press the Amendment. If the Secretary of State for War had confined himself purely to the question addressed to him, and had not gone into the general policy of the refugee camps, he thought he would have responded to the appeal. He felt the justice of the complaint of the Secretary of State for War that this question had been sprung upon him without notice. Notice ought to have been given, and he regretted that he had not foreseen that this debate would arise. He could not accept the right hon. Gentle- 1196 man's view in regard to the whole policy pursued in connection with the refugee camps, and therefore he was driven to the division lobby to protest against that policy. He had to call attention some time ago to the treatment of the wives and children of men who were out on commando, and although the Secretary of State for War at the time indignantly denied the complaint which was brought on the authority of The Times, he afterwards made inquiry, and as the result of his investigation he put a stop to what was complained of. Therefore, he thought there would be very good ground merely on that account for believing that the right hon. Gentleman would do everything in his power to see that these camps were conducted with due regard to humanity. He had given his honest assurance that so far as he was concerned he meant to see that the war was carried on with the utmost humanity possible. The hon. Member for the Hallam Division had complained of the action of those who called attention to this without notice, because it was a means of discrediting our country abroad. He did not see what difference notice would make in so far as discrediting the country abroad was concerned. If he had quoted anything which was not within the knowledge of the Secretary of State for War there would have been a good deal of justice in what the hon. Member said, but he had confined himself exclusively to quoting answers which the right hon. Gentleman had himself given in the House.
§ MR. BRODRICK
dissented, and was understood to say that the hon. Member's argument was based on statements contained in answers which had been misinterpreted.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said if the right hon. Gentleman gave an answer in the House of Commons which was capable of an interpretation other than that which was meant he must not blame the Opposition if the Continental journals put the wrong interpretation on the answer. He had quoted the official report in Hansard of the answer which was given to the House. That was what appeared in the Continental journals, and the right hon. Gentleman had been subjected by the hon. Member for the Hallam Division to the terrible 1197 imputation of discrediting and slandering his country abroad. If they were not to call attention to any of these things lest the gutter press of Paris, Belgium, and elsewhere should misconstrue their action, and tear their words away from the context, what would be the use of the House of Commons at all? They were sometimes told in this House that the guns of the artillery were not good, that the rifles were not good, that the ammunition was worthless, and that the Navy was armed with muzzle-loading guns. If the Continental press began to quote these criticisms from men who belonged to the profession which was specially patriotic, it would say that the British Navy was not good, and that the British Army was worthless. The men who made the criticisms would be liable to the charge that they were discrediting their country in the eyes of the world. Criticism became impossible if such puerile suggestions were allowed to be made. After all, the Continent was not governed by this wretched press, which the right hon. Gentleman thought it worth while to quote in the House. What we had to consider was the opinion of the more rational people abroad. What precipitated the row between Spain and America was in a great measure the question of the treatment of the reconcentrados in the camps. Who was doing the greatest
§ service to the country—the man who threw his ægis over the Secretary of State for War and tried to keep back information from the House of Commons, or those who were doing their best to improve the condition of the refugees? The facts could not be withheld. There was no doubt that constant communication between the Continent and South Africa was going on, and he had no doubt the information would be exaggerated to a large extent. That was why he thought it was important that they should get the real facts in the House of Commons from Ministers. The best answer to any slander circulated on the Continent was to get the real facts in the House of Commons. Anyone who had the interest of the country at heart should rather welcome any discussion which elicited the facts on the question.
§ MR. NANNETTI
said he had not received a reply to the question he asked earlier in the evening about the barracks in Dublin.
said that could not be raised on the Vote now before the Committee. The hon. Member could ask the question afterwards.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 46; Noes, 123. (Division List No. 210.)1199
|Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)||Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud)||Lambert, George||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Leamy, Edmund||Price, Robert John|
|Bell, Richard||Leng, Sir John||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Brigg, John||M'Govern, T.||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Caldwell, James||Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Murphy, J.||Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Sullivan, Donal|
|Craig, Robert Hunter||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan|
|Cremer, William Randal||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Weir, James Galloway|
|Delany, William||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Doogan, P. C.||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)|
|Ffrench, Peter||O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Mr. Lloyd-George and Mr. Dillon.|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)|
|Grant, Corrie||O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N)|
|Hayden, John Patrick||O'Malley, William|
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.||Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Charrington, Spencer|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Brookfield, Col. Montagu||Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.|
|Allsopp, Hon. George||Brymer, William Ernest||Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Bull, William James||Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds||Cautley, Henry Strother||Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)||Crossley, Sir Savile|
|Bigwood, James||Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc')||Doxford, Sir William Theodore|
|Brassey, Albert||Chapman, Edward||Duke, Henry Edward|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Lawson, John Grant||Ropner, Colonel Robert|
|Finch, George H.||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W-)|
|FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-||Lowe, Francis William||Seton-Karr, Henry|
|Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Sinclair, Louis (Romford)|
|Fletcher, Sir Henry||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)||Skewes-Cox, Thomas|
|Fuller, J. M. F.||Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth||Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)|
|Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.||Macdona, John Cumming||Spear, John Ward|
|Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin&Nairn||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool||Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)|
|Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)||M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.||Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier|
|Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.||M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Goschen, Hon. George Joachim||Manners, Lord Cecil||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Green, Walford D (Wednesb'ry)||Martin, Richard Biddulph||Tollemache, Henry James|
|Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)||Maxwell, WJH (Dumfriesshire||Valentia, Viscount|
|Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.)||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Greville, Hon. Ronald||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Warde, Col. C. E.|
|Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||Morrell, George Herbert||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Ld G (Midd'x||Mount, William Arthur||Webb, Col. William George|
|Hamilton, Marq. of (L'dnderry||Nicholson, William Graham||Welby, Lt.-Col. A. CE (Taunt'n|
|Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.||Nicol, Donald Ninian||Whiteley, H. (Ashton un. Lyne|
|Harris, Frederick Leverton||Parker, Gilbert||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Hay, Hon. Claude George||Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley||Wills, Sir Frederick|
|Heaton, John Henniker||Penn, John||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Hope, J. F. (Sheffield Bright side||Platt-Higgins, Frederick||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Howard, John (Kent, Faversh.)||Pretyman, Ernest George||Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)|
|Hozier, John James Hy. Cecil||Purvis, Robert||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)||Rasch, Major Frederic Carne||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)||Renshaw, Charles Bine||Younger, William|
|Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury)||Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge||TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Keswick, William||Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T.|
|Law, Andrew Bonar||Rolleston, Sir John F. L.|
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ LORD STANLEY
said he had not got the particulars at the present moment as to the case of the contractor referred to by the hon. Member, but the matter was being inquired into, and he could assure the hon. Member that if a mistake had happened he would be happy to rectify it.
§ MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE
said he wished to direct attention to the fact that proper provision had not been made for the families of the garrison regiments at Gibraltar and Malta. The troops of the garrison regiments were going out to the Mediterranean stations under circumstances utterly different from those in which they had enlisted. The men were to be allowed to take out their wives and families; for it was well known that it was a very bad thing to separate soldiers from their wives and families. But at Gibraltar 50 per cent. of the families had to be left behind; and at Malta it was impossible to accommodate the wives and families of the garrison. Not only that, the accommodation of the single soldier was bad, not only in quantity but in quality. He hoped the Secretary of State for War would give some satisfactory answer as 1200 to the provision that was to be made for the accommodation of the wives and families of the men of the garrison regiments.
§ MR. GODDARD
said he wished to draw attention to a most important matter in connection with the financial arrangements of the War Office. He noticed that there was a growing tendency to make use of certain Votes for other purposes than those for which they had been granted. In looking over the Votes he discovered that in no fewer than twenty-two cases money voted for certain uses had been transferred to other Votes. That system naturally led to extravagance. It was a dangerous policy, and in order to show his objection to it, he moved to reduce the Vote by £100.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Items L, M, N (New Works, etc.) be reduced by £100, in respect of Boat and Ireland Island Sea Walls and Piers Repair, Storm Damages."—(Mr. Goddard.)
§ MR. BRODRICK
said he had not a word of apology to say as to their conduct under the system against which the hon. Gentleman protested. If there was an urgent service which 1201 had not got parliamentary sanction, were they to wait fifteen months until they obtained parliamentary sanction? A Minister was in the House to take responsibility, and so long as he held his present office the criticisms of the hon. Member opposite would not deter him from taking that responsibility. As to the question put by the hon. Member for East Bristol he had to say that the War Office had endeavoured, and with some success, both at Gibraltar and Malta, to extend the accommodation for the wives and children of the soldiers of the garrison regiments. He hoped also that when things settled down in South Africa and a garrison was stationed there the same class of soldier would be found sufficient for garrison purposes, and also for laying the foundation of good settlers in that country. The hon. Member for Lichfield had made an attack on him which was, he thought, not only unmerited, but discourteous. He had complained of an answer he had given with reference to desertions from garrison regiments, and had said that Ministerial replies were intended to be evasive, and that there was no intention of giving a direct answer. The hon. Gentleman was entirely in error. He had answered every question put to him during the session, and had made the answer, of which the hon. Gentleman complained in all good faith, on the information supplied to him.
§ MR. COURTENAY WARNER
said he thought the right hon. Gentleman quite misunderstood him, and he was glad to hear that further accommodation was to be given to the married men of the
§ garrison regiments of the Mediterranean. What he objected to was not the system, but the abuse of the system.
§ MR. WEIR () ROSS and Cromarty
said the hon. Member for Ipswich was only doing his duty in calling attention to the matter before the Committee. He wished to know whether the sum of £3,100 would complete the work at Ireland Island, or would the Treasury at a later stage have to provide further funds at the request of the Secretary of State for War. It was their duty to protest against a system under which a Minister went to the Treasury and obtained unlimited supplies of money.
§ LORD STANLEY
said that the sum asked for would complete the work. The damage was done by a hurricane, which visited the island without the sanction of the Treasury.
§ MR. GODDARD
said he thought it right to direct attention to the fact that he had a Treasury letter which supported his contention as to the way in which the Estimates were put forward, and the want of finality in them. The explanation was altogether inadequate.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 49; Noes, 115. (Division List No. 211.)1203
|Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)||Griffith, Ellis J.||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)|
|Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud)||Hayden, John Patrick||O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir A. D.||O'Malley, William|
|Brigg, John||Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Caldwell, James||Lambert, George||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Leamy, Edmund||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Clancy, John Joseph||M'Govern, T.||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Craig, Robert Hunter||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Cremer, William Randal||Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)||Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (N'th'nts)|
|Delany, William||Murphy, J.||Sullivan, Donal|
|Dillon, John||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)|
|Doogan, P. C.||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Elibank, Master of||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Ffrench, Peter||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Mr. Goddard and Mr. Warner.|
|Fuller, J. M. F.||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)|
|Grant, Corrie||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.|
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.||Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)||Platt-Higgins, Frederick|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.)||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Allsopp, Hon. George||Greville, Hon. Ronald||Purvis, Robert|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||Rasch, Major Frederick Carne|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G (Mid'x)||Renshaw, Charles Bine|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manc'r.)||Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nd'y)||Ridley, Hon. M. W (Stalybridge|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W. (Leeds||Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. W.||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Harris, Frederick Leverton||Rolleston, Sir. John F. L.|
|Bigwood, James||Heaton, John Henniker||Ropner, Colonel Robert|
|Blundell, Col. Henry||Hope, J. F. (Sheffi'ld, Brightside||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Brassey, Albert||Howard, John (Kent, Faversh.||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Hozier, Hon James Henry Cecil||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)||Seton-Karr, Henry|
|Brymer, William Ernest||Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh||Sinclair, Louis (Romford)|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury)||Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Keswick, William||Spear, John Ward|
|Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)||Lawson, John Grant||Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)|
|Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc' r||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Sturt, Hon. Humphrey Napier|
|Chapman, Edward||Leveson-Gower, Fred. N. S.||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Charrington, Spencer||Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.||Thorton, Percy M.|
|Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.||Lowe, Francis William||Tollemache, Henry James|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Valentia, Viscount|
|Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Corbett, T L. (Down, North)||Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th)||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Crossley, Sir Savile||Macdona, John Cumming||Webb, Colonel William George|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Welby, Lt.-Col. A C E (Taunton|
|Doxford, Sir William Theodore||M'Calmont, Col. H. L. B. (Cambs||Whiteley, H. (Aston und. Lyne|
|Duke, Henry Edward||M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.||Willoughby d'Eresby, Lord|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.||Manners, Lord Cecil||Wills, Sir Frederick|
|Finch, George H.||Martin, Richard Biddulph||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.|
|Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Maxwell, WJH (Dumfriesshire||Wilson, John (Glasgow|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)||Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)|
|FitzGerald, Sir Rbt. Penrose-||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-|
|Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.||Morrell, George Herbert||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Fletcher, Sir Henry||Mount, William Arthur||Younger, William|
|Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.||Nicholson, William Graham|
|Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn||Nicol, Donald Ninian||TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)||Parker, Gilbert|
|Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||Peel, Hon. Wm. Robert W.|
|Goschen, Hon. George Joachim||Penn, John|
§ Original Question again proposed.1204
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 115; Noes, 49. (Division List No. 212).1205
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.||Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Greville, Hon. Ronald|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas||Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill|
|Allsopp, Hon. George||Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G. (Mid'x|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Crossley, Sir Savile||Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'ndry|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r||Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Harris, Frederick Leverton|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds||Duke, Henry Edward||Heaton, John Henniker|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.||Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightsd.|
|Bigwood, James||Finch, George H.||Howard, John (Kent, Favers'm.|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil|
|Brassey, Albert||Fisher, William Hayes||Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||FitzGerald, Sir Rbt. Penrose-||Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh|
|Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.||Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury)|
|Brymer, William Ernest||Fletcher, Sir Henry||Keswick, William|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.||Lawson, John Grant|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Gordon, Hn J. E. (Elgin & Nairn)||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage|
|Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire||Gordon, J. (Londonderry, South||Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.|
|Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc.||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon||Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Bristol, S.|
|Chapman, Edward||Goschen, Hon. George Joachim||Lowe, Francis William|
|Charrington, Spencer||Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury||Loyd, Archie Kirkman|
|Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.||Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)|
|Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth||Purvis, Robert||Valentia, Viscount|
|Macdona, John Cumming||Rasch, Major Frederick Carne||Walker, Col. Wm. Hall|
|M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Renshaw, Charles Bine||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|M'Calmont, Col. H. LB (Cambs.||Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge||Webb, Col. Wm. George|
|M' Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb'rgh W||Ritchie, Hn. Chas Thomson||Werby, Lt.-Col. A C E (Taunton|
|Manners, Lord Cecil||Rolleston, Sir John F. L.||Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne|
|Martin, Richard Biddulph||Ropner, Col, Robert||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Maxwell, WJH (Dumfriesshire||Royds, Clement Molyneux||Wills, Sir Frederick|
|Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-||Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, ER.|
|Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Morrell, George Herbert||Seton-Karr, Henry||Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)|
|Mount, William Arthur||Sinclair, Louis (Romford)||Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-|
|Nicholson, William Graham||Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Nicol, Donald Ninian||Spear, John Ward||Younger, William|
|Parker, Gilbert||Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)|
|Peel, Hn. Wm. Rbt. Wellesley||Sturt, Hn. Humphry Napier||TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Penn, John||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Platt-Higgins, Frederick||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Pretyman, Ernest George||Tollemache, Henry James|
|Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)||Griffith, Ellis J.||O'Malley, William|
|Allen, C. P. (Glouc., Stroud)||Hayden, John Patrick||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Brigg, John||Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)||Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Lambert, George||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Caldwell, James||Leamy, Edmund||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Channing, Francis Allston||M'Govern, T.||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)||Spencer, Rt. Hn. CR (Northants|
|Craig, Robert Hunter||Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)||Sullivan, Donal|
|Cremer, William Randal||Murphy, J.||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan|
|Delany, William||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Weir, James Galloway|
|Dillon, John||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Doogan, P. C.||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Elibank, Master of||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Ffrench, Peter||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. Warner and Mr. Charles Hobhouse.|
|Fuller, J. M. F.||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)|
|Grant, Corrie||O'Kelly, J. (Roscommon, N.)|
§ Original Question put accordingly.
|The Committee divided:—Ayes, 119; Noes, 38. (Division List No. 213.)|
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Howard, John (Kent, Faversh.)|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil|
|Allsopp, Hon. George||Duke, Henry Edward||Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Elibank, Master of||Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury)|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r||Finch, George H.||Keswick, William|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Lawson, John Grant|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Fisher, William Hayes||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage|
|Bigwood, James||FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-||Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S|
|Brassey, Albert||Fletcher, Sir Henry||Lowe, Francis William|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.||Loyd, Archie Kirkman|
|Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin & Nairn)||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestof)|
|Brymer, William Ernest||Gordon, J. (Londonderry, South||Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth|
|Caldwell, James||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||Macdona, John Cumming|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Goschen, Hon. George Joachim||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)||M'Calmont, Col. HLB (Cambs.|
|Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)||Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.)||M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.)|
|Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r||Greville, Hon. Ronald||Manners, Lord Cecil|
|Chapman, Edward||Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||Martin, Richard Bidduph|
|Charrington, Spencer||Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lrd G. (Midd'x||Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfries-sh|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Hamilton, Marq. of (Lond'nd'ry||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert W.||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy|
|Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas||Harris, Frederick Leverton||Morrell, George Herbert|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Heaton, John Henniker||Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)|
|Crossley, Sir Savile||Hope, J. F. (Sheffield Brightside||Mount, William Arthur|
|Nicholson, William Graham||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-||Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne)|
|Nicol, Donald Ninian||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Parker, Gilbert||Seton-Karr, Henry||Wills, Sir Frederick|
|Peel, Hn. Wm Robert Wellesley||Sinclair, Louis (Romford)||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Penn, John||Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Platt-Higgins, Frederick||Spear, John Ward||Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)|
|Pretyman, Ernest George||Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)||Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-|
|Purvis, Robert||Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier||Wyndham, Rt. Hn. George|
|Rasch, Major Frederic Carne||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)||Younger, William|
|Renshaw, Charles Bine||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Rickett, J. Compton||Tollemache, Henry James|
|Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge||Valentia, Viscount||TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Rolleston, Sir John F. L.||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Ropner, Colonel Robert||Webb, Colonel William George|
|Royds, Clement Molyneux||Welby, Lt.-Col. A C E (Taunton)|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.||Hayden, John Patrick||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Allen, Charles P (Glouc., Stroud||Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Lambert, George||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Brigg, John||Leamy, Edmund||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Channing, Francis Allston||M'Govern, T.||Sullivan, Donal|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan|
|Craig, Robert Hunter||Murphy, J.||Weir, James Galloway|
|Cremer, William Randal||Nannetti, Joseph P.||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Delany, William||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)|
|Dillon, John||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.|
|Doogan, P. C.||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. Patrick O'Brien and Mr. Haviland-Burke.|
|Ffrench, Peter||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||O'Kelly, J. (Roscommon, N.)|
|Grant, Corrie||O'Malley, William|
|Griffith, Ellis J.||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
§ Resolution to be reported upon Thursday, 6th June; Committee to sit again upon Thursday, 6th June.