§ Resolution reported; "That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money voted by Parliament for Army services of necessary expenditure incurred by associations in pursuance of any Act of the present session to provide for the reorganisation of His Majesty's military forces, and for that purpose to authorise 1658 the establishment of county associations and the raising and maintenance of a Territorial Force and to amend the Acts relating to the Reserve Forces."
§ Resolution read a second time:—
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution,"
§ THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BUCHANAN,), Perthshire, E.
who was indistinctly heard in the gallery, was understood to say that a month or six weeks ago he laid on the Table of the House an approximate estimate of the cost of the Territorial Army when it came into existence, amounting to £2,800,000. Since then an additional estimate of £625,000 had been presented to the House. Of that amount about one-third—£200,000—was due to items which were specifically excluded from the original estimate, and £425,000 represented concessions which had been made by his right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War in answer to representations which had been made to him by Members of the House. He thought he was within the mark in saying that those Estimates were ample. They represented what was believed to be the maximum cost of the new force. It was, he thought, impossible that they could be exceeded, and they could not, in any probability, be reached for a large number of years. They had endeavoured to give the maximum estimate of the Territorial Force mobilised on a war footing. It was, of course, largely in excess of any establishment of forces that would be wanted in time of peace. That alone gave them a very large margin to work upon. There were margins also in the various other items, and it would take a long series of years to work up to anything like that total. With regard to the sum entered for a second suit of clothes, the item allowed for that did not represent the total cost of a second suit of clothes given to the 300,000 odd men in the Territorial Army. It was more than ample to allow for the upkeep of a suit of clothes, which was taken to last for four years. The sum was calculated on that basis, and it left a very considerable margin for any possible extravagance in any individual association.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN (Worcestershire, E.)
asked where was the sum for the original cost of providing those clothes.
§ MR. BUCHANAN
replied that they did not propose to provide the men with clothes right away. The uniforms they already possessed would be handed over to the county associations.
§ MR. ASHLEY (Lancashire, Blackpool)
If the walking out suit is to last four years, how long is the service suit supposed to last?
§ MR. BUCHANAN
said it would probably last two or three years. These figures were based on the experience already obtained in the Volunteers. He was very anxious that the estimate he had laid before the House should not be increased, but he felt confident that within the figure indicated they would be perfectly able to bear to the full the necessary expenses for the Territorial Force. As regarded the method of payment to the associations, it was intended that there should be a Vote for the Territorial Army, and ultimately that Vote would supersede the Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteer Votes, which would gradually decrease as the Territorial Army Vote went up. Under the Bill the bulk of the money for the Territorial Army would be paid over to the county associations. The general lines upon which they proposed to go were those of the existing Volunteer Vote, but they were going to introduce certain modifications with regard to the payments under that Vote which experience had shown to be desirable. Instead of including everything under capitation grants, they proposed to separate certain fixed charges which depended not upon the numbers of the corps concerned, but were fixed from year to year as necessary to each unit. They would thus divide off the charges which might be looked upon as of a more or loss permanent character, and those which necessarily varied from year to year. They could work out from past experience what the establishment charges were, and they would go upon that. The capitation grant seemed to him to be quite adequate. They would insist on compensation being paid for drill halls, and money would be provided for that purpose. They would 1660 be maintained in the future by means of a sinking fund, but the Government could not hold out any hope of being able to advance capital to purchase them. The last paragraph of the Resolution showed the means by which they wished to secure the control over the finances of the county associations. At the present moment the colonel of a Volunteer regiment had control over its expenditure, its efficiency, and so forth, but in future that duty would fall upon the general officer in command of the district, while every person would be made responsible. That system would furnish them with the true mode in which capitation grants should be made. The accounts would be open to the inspection of the Accountant General of the War Office and the Auditor and Comptroller-General. The control over the money spent ought to be no less complete than that over the money spent at the present moment on the Volunteers and Auxiliary Forces, and the Government were in favour of securing that. The method by which they proposed to secure sufficient control over the associations was this: At the present moment the various colonels sent in the nominal roll of men who were efficient, but the money was distributed through other channels. They proposed to make the officer, probably the brigadier who furnished them with the nominal roll, ultimately responsible, because they would pay the capitation grant on that. Money, as he had stated, would not be put under the control of the Territorial Army but under the general control of the officials dealing with the service. He could not at present add anything to that statement, but he would be glad to answer any inquiries on the subject. The accounts sent up would be available for inspection by the Accountant-General of the War Office and the Comptroller-General. The estimate of the cost of the Territorial Army was, in his judgment, ample, and when the three Auxiliary Forces were amalgamated he thought we should have a better fighting force in the second line organised on the general principles of unity, and at a lower cost than we had at the present moment.
§ *SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean)
said that perhaps the 1661 hon. Gentleman who had just sat clown was one of the highest authorities in the House on the control by the House and the Treasury of the expenditure of the country. The Financial Secretary had won his distinction in the House by his services in regard to that question. He had alluded to the control of the House as being as continuous and as complete as it was in the case of the Volunteers, a remark which he ventured to say in a recent debate by means of a disorderly interruption meant "none at all," because the House really enjoyed no control over the Volunteers. This was a matter for the House of Commons and the House of Commons alone. There was no doubt that the question which they discussed last night and left unfinished must be cleared up by Amendments to Clauses 12 and 32, which were not discussed. The matter could not be left as it was. But, the question which they were now discussing was one in regard to which they had the final and effective voice, and after all that they had learned of military finance in the last five or six years and of the changes of opinion during the time of the late Government—the difference of views between the War Office, the Treasury, and the Army Council which came before the Public AccountsCommittee—they could not pass this matter by in silence. They must know where they were in regard to the control of the Territorial Army, and that was peculiarly a House of Commons matter for which there would be no other opportunity of discussion. It seemed that in the future they would have one Vote instead of three Votes in regard to the Territorial Forces, and in so far as that was the fact it was not a change for the better as regarded the control of the House, because it deprived them of the advantage of discussing the separate services separately. The statement that the funds were to be handed over to the county associations as those of a "going concern" was very vague, and they did not know how it affected stores and equipments in hand. A reply seemed moreover to indicate that the pay and allowances would be under the control of the commanding officer in camp while other expenses would be accounted for by the county associations. On the 10th of May the Secretary of 1662 State went into more detail. The right hon. Gentleman said the grants would be applicable only to authorised objects. At the present moment in the case of the Volunteers that was so, but the money being given in more or less a lump sum the choice between the authorised objects was one that was not within the control of Parliament at all. His right hon. friend went on and clearly showed that he did not draw a sound distinction between audit and appropriation, audit being secured in every case, but appropriation being secured by a certain system peculiar to this country. Audit was one thing, but appropriation was another. They were satisfied that the audit would be all right. They were concerned about the appropriation and desired to be satisfied about that. The hon. Gentleman which had just spoken knew how controversy raged between the Army Council and the Public Accounts Committee three or four years ago.
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,) Haddington
was understood to say that that was a superstition.
§ *SIR CHARLES DILKE
said he relied on the Reports of the Public Accounts Committee and not on unauthorised statements by gentlemen outside the House, whose knowledge, however, no one could doubt. No one could doubt the knowledge of Mr. Bowles on the subject. He based his observations on the facts brought before the Committee by the reports of the Public Accounts Committee and on the changes made based on the Order in Council. That was not superstition unless the right hon. Gentleman replied that the Public Accounts Committee and Parliament and the Cabinet and the Treasury that backed up the Committee against the Army Council were all wrong. The Public Accounts Committee had named three flagrant cases where money had been taken for one purpose and expended on another. The audit was all right. It was a question of appropriation pure and simple. Those cases were in the index, but he did not desire to read them to the House. They were in the Report and he could point to the pages where they 1663 appeared. One was a Volunteer case in which an expenditure was taken under the Volunteer Vote for one purpose and expended on a purpose other than that for which it was intended. Then there was a case last year upon which they reported that the terms of the Order in Council of August, 1902, had been exceeded, as there had been a diversion of money from its proper course. The excuse they gave might assist his right hon. friend, although it was not a good reason at the time it was given, and therefore lie would make him a present of it for what it was worth. It was that there was a lack of finality in dealing with the Auxiliary Forces. He presented it to his right hon. friend because the right hon. Gentleman no doubt believed he was reaching finality by this reorganisation. But the House ought to know what was the finality they were reaching. There was another case which the Public Accounts Committee reported, in which they stated that the payment of capitation grants was conditional on the fulfilment of certain obligations laid down by the Order in Council, and that those provisions had not been complied with. The way to prevent these things happening in future was clearly to insure that the Treasury regulations should be Treasury regulations and not Army Council regulations; that they should be inspired not by Army Council but by Treasury views if there happened to be a difference of opinion, and that they should be in a form which would commend them to Parliament. In the Bill before the House there was a provision for laying these Treasury regulations before Parliament, but anyone reading those words would find nothing in their provisions which gave a power of disallowance. They were not to be effectively laid before Parliament. They were to be produced. There was to be no laying them on the Table for so many days, and he was afraid that laying before Parliament would be of an illusory character unless Parliament could wring from the Treasury to-day regulations to secure not only audit but appropriation in the sense Parliament desired. These were questions which excited much interest in the House. There were questions upon the Paper now. One was to be asked to-morrow on this subject. Surely it was much better that 1664 these matters should not be dealt with at Question time, but that the answers should be given in that debate. He could not help thinking that under the Bill the loose system of finance which had hitherto been confined to the Volunteers would be to some extent extended. It was limited in some ways, in the ways previously announced by his hon. friend, who had made certain divisions under certain heads, which was an improvement so far as it went, but it was extended in another sense because more money was going to be spent. If the new system was to be a good one the expenditure would have to be an increasing one, and the system of finance the House was adopting ought to be carefully scrutinised, as it would be the military financial system of the future. Coming to detail, he would repeat that what they wanted was not audit, but appropriation, which was quite different from audit and much more difficult to obtain, and was peculiar to this country. The precedents were such as to make it reasonable. When the Yeomanry went out to war, there was a grotesque appropriation of money, entirely through the looseness of the military finance. In such a case the audit would detect certain evils but not others. The money would be spent, but not spent in the way intended. He asked hon. Members interested in the subject to look at the Reports of the Public Accounts Committee and at the Order in Council issued by the late Government after the dispute between the Army Council and the Treasury. In the Order was laid down the principle upon which the House ought to act. It was sufficiently secured by the Order in Council. He now came to questions of detail. The original estimate criticised on the Second Reading of the Bill was called an approximate estimate. He did not blame any one for that, because it was admittedly a difficult matter to estimate for a change of this kind. The difficulties were very great. They had now an additional estimate upon the subject. He had read with surprise in the Paper in his hand and had heard with surprise to-day the statement made by his hon. friend the Financial Secretary that it was an estimate that ought not to be laid before the House; that it was a 1665 war estimate; an inflated estimate; an estimate for a state of things that could never exist. Why should the Government give such an estimate—an estimate which in the very nature of affairs was an extreme estimate. It was almost too good. It was like a prospectus.
§ *SIR CHARLES DILKE
said his own view of the estimate would be the other way. It would be an under estimate, not for abnormal but for normal circumstances. The hon. Gentleman had repeated to-day that it was ample; that it was a war estimate and therefore gave a large margin in time of peace: but, it would enable them to spend for one purpose what they happened to have for another. He did not wish to overstate the case, but his suggestion to the House was that they were voting a lump sum, and that the figures were not given to the House. There were certain points mentioned on the Second Reading which remained outside this estimate altogether. There was an additional estimate for certain forms of equipment, hut that meant storage for equipment, which cost more than the equipment itself. Storage was not always connected with the drill hall, and it was a matter in regard to which different battalions in different counties stood in very different positions. It was coubtful in his mind how far, as regarded the points that were named, the expenditure on drill halls and on ranges was satisfactorily met in the estimate before them, and he mentioned t them as items and matters which ought to be considered. As regarded c imp allowances, they were left in a nebulous position; the matter was extremely vague. He would like to ask the House to notice one of the assurances given to them on that subject. The Secretary of State had constantly used the words "substantially the same." He said that the Yeomanry were to be treated in "substantially the same" way as at present, but he then said that he repudiated the suggestion that there was to be one standard for 1666 the Yeomanry and another for everybody else; he said that it was to be an all round standard. As to camp allowance, it included all kinds of different things; did that allowance mean an increase all round, on a certain scale, for infantry and other branches of the Territorial Army, as had been promised to the Yeomanry? If so, he could not see that the money could possibly be sufficient. The figure of 2s. a head, which had been mentioned, was greatly exceeded in the case of the fifteen days camp, and in some parts of the country it might be 4s. and 5s. a day for pay alone for the fifteen days camp. They ought to make a distinction between the Regular soldier, who was engaged all the year round for several years, and the Volunteer who was in camp for the public service for fifteen days. It was quite a different thing inducing a man to go into camp for fifteen days; they must offer him more liberal terms than they would to a man who took up soldiering as his trade for the whole year round. The difference between the two cases was very great. It was perfectly defensible to give the Volunteer better rations for the short time he was in camp in order to make him a happier man, than it was thought necessary to give in the case of a man with whom they were dealing all the year round. The principle laid clown in the House of Lords by Lord Portsmouth as being the principle of the Bill was, he thought, a sound one, that the men, to use the noble Lord's own term—though it was not carried out in the estimate—were to be paid for every day they were at work. But it could not be shown that that principle was acted upon in regard to the infantry force in the accounts which they had before them. There were a great many matters outside the estimate which would increase the amount to be spent under the Bill. There were promises given in the House; of Lords as to the men enlisted before the Bill became law, and there was also the promise in regard to the Militia battalions who joined the Territorial Army. In that case there was a promise given in the House of Lords that a higher course of training than the mere fifteen days would be required, but that 1667 it was a question of money. Undoubtedly the question of money would become more important before the Bill passed into law. These battalions must receive the higher rate of pay, but there was no provision for it in the Territorial Army Estimate. The Secretary of State had made one satisfactory promise on this subject since the Second Reading debate. There was a certain vagueness before that debate as to how far they were going to have appeals for public subscriptions to finance the Territorial Army. But Questions had been put to the right hon. Gentleman who had pledged himself that the hat was not to be sent round for the Territorial Army. Therefore, they had to face the financing of the matter, and put it on a thoroughly sound basis. That was now understood. They had got to finance the Territorial Army. He would just mention two heads out of the four or five about which his hon. friend opposite had asked for an explanation. Clothing was a matter which had excited great attention in the House, and about which a great number of Questions had been put. There had been difficulty in finding out exactly what was meant. He had given attention to the subject, but he confessed that he had not the least idea what was meant. The Answers which had been given to the Questions put had not cleared up the matter. The Answer to the hon. Member for Darlington was that the cost of one suit was 10s. 5d. a head. Whoever supplied the Answer to his right hon. friend had supplied it badly. The Question was repeated, and the Answer was corrected.
§ *SIR CHAELES DILKE
Well, the one new suit was £2 17s. 3d. per man, or 1668 £829,000. That was one suit. But how did that work out with the figures which had been given that day? He had read through the accounts to try to make out what he could buy for the sum, but he had not succeeded. Although the different arms varied very much in their requirements, yet the 10s. 5d. did not appear to be borne out even if the one suit was to last two or three years. [An HON. MEMBER: Four years.] Four years for a walking out suit and two or three years for the working suit. On neither of those principles could he account for the particular figures. This was not a 2½d. matter, because everybody knew that the question of clothing had a very important bearing on a force. Frequently the best men of a regiment were the worst dressed, the reason being that they were often concerned in its finance, and they made their clothes last as long as possible; they were the older men, and probably did not care about looking smart; but for the young recruits they ought to provide the dress on a liberal scale to make it more attractive, and it was by no means the worst class of recruit that they attracted in that way. The walking-out suit lasted four years. They could not get a walking-out suit for four times 10s. 5d., if they included the cap or helmet, and other items. They were told last night that they were going to be put on an equal footing; were they going to be put on an equal footing in respect of all these things? Was the Territorial Army going to have what the Militia had got by pressure? One word as to the adjutants. The financial question with regard to the adjutants had been as difficult to him as in regard to the other matters. If they looked at the total amount under the different heads of the Army Estimates, the sum for adjutants was a very large one indeed. If they looked at the cost of the adjutants one by one they found, roughly speaking, that it averaged £1 a day per head. It seemed to him that taking adjutant by adjutant, they got a sum very much larger than the estimate. The new estimate gave £140,000 additional to the £100 per year. The total cost of the adjutants appeared to be much higher than the sum of £260,000 allowed by the Secretary of State for War. Taking even that as the amount, if they 1669 deducted the £140,000 that gave an excess of £120,000, and he was quite sure there was nothing like that sum put down in the original return. That was a matter upon which he thought the House ought to have clear information. The non-effective point had been thoroughly explained, but there remained the question of bounties. It was difficult to ascertain how far bounties came within this Resolution. In Ireland they had a different scheme, and that scheme became more and more doubtful every day because they had hitherto understood that in Ireland the Militia were going to continue as Militia. After what was said last night the Militia in Ireland appeared to be assuming the form of a new type of Regulars. The battalions which took the place of the Regular Reserve battalions here would exist in Ireland. As there were going to be Territorial Associations in Ireland he did not know how far those bounties would form a part of the Territorial Army or the Regular Army schemes. He would like some information on that point. The questions asked in the House of Lords showed that the Government were considering annual and additional bounties and special Irish Militia bounties which might or might not fall within the words of this Resolution and about which they were entitled to some information. Far from being grossly over-estimated, he thought the cost had been under-estimated. As for the depots, he imagined that they were outside this Resolution. The third part of the Bill was not Territorial Army finance, and could be done by the Army authorities without a Bill. In the annual memorandum dealing with the British Army there was a paragraph about depots, in which the Inspector-General for Recruiting referred to the detrimental effect upon recruiting which was produced by the miserable condition in which the depots were. Under this Bill those depots would continue to be used for another class of men, and that fact could not be looked forward to without contemplating a large expenditure upon those depots. He apologised to the House for the time he had taken up, and concluded by repeating his belief that the subjects raised in the debate 1670 were deserving of the attention of the Government.
§ MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH (Derbyshire, W.)
said he did not propose to follow the right hon. Baronet into the details of his speech. He agreed with him when he said he had quoted sufficient cases to prove that the estimate now presented to the House certainly under-estimated the cost. He proposed to deal more with the question of the control of the House of Commons and the Public Accounts Committee over the expenditure. At Question time he asked the Secretary for War if he would refer his statement of requirements in which his estimate was presented to the House to the Public Accounts Committee for consideration and report, and the right hon. Gentleman seemed a little doubtful as to whether there were any precedents for such a reference. Sir Erskine May laid down that under established usage important changes in the customary form of the Estimates should not be made without the previous approval of the Public Accounts Committee acting on behalf of the House of Commons, and, in deference to that principle, official alterations of the Estimates were restricted to such arrangements as involved no question of principle. Last year some small changes were made in the Army Estimates, but they were submitted to the Public Accounts Committee who expressed their approval of the suggested change. After the speech made by the Financial Secretary to the War Office it was clear that Votes 3, 4, and 5 for the Militia. Yeomanry, and Volunteers would ultimately disappear, and their place would be taken by a comprehensive Vote for the Territorial Forces. The difficulty which many of them experienced in endeavouring to understand the numerous Papers which had been laid before them by the Army Council in reference to this Bill had been to distinguish between the estimates made for the Territorial Force and money which was to be provided for the work of the County Associations. Did the amount put down include the whole cost of the operations which would devolve upon the county organisations under the Bill? The first estimate presented stated that no provision 1671 was made in the estimate for the initial expenditure upon guns, rifles, and capital expenditure upon drill halls and rifle ranges. Had the Government formed any estimate of what that cost would be? There did not appear to be any provision for such things as the secretariat of the County Associations.
§ MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH
thought the principle adopted was to include everything which was not specially connected with the actual training and equipment of the soldiers. Out of the money voted to meet the necessary expenditure connected with the exercise and discharge by the association of its powers and duties, the association would have to defray the cost of the official staff, the rent or acquisition of their offices, the establishment and maintenance of rifle clubs, and other matters. According to information which they had, Parliament would be asked to provide the money under certain heads, with the deliberate knowledge that the county associations, if they, were to carry out the purposes of the Act, would have to spend the money on purposes of which Parliament was ignorant at the time it passed the Votes. It was essential, in the first place, that the House should know the objects for which they were asked to vote certain sums of money. Unless they knew the whole system of appropriation absolutely fell to the ground. Unless they got that; information it would be impossible for the House to see whether the money had been spent in the manner intended. He regretted that it had not been found possible in the numerous Papers which had been presented to hon. Members to give a more detailed statement as to the form in which the Estimates would be presented to the House of Commons. The hon. Gentleman had stated plainly that afternoon that the Government were going to proceed on the lines of the Volunteer Vote. He had heard that statement with considerable regret. It might or might not have been the best way of dealing with the Volunteer Vote in the past, but certainly it was not a justification for the method being extended, not only to a much larger sum 1672 of money, but to the possibility of the money being spent in numerous different ways. He was not at all sure that under the Bill as it now stood even the very modified control which the House had over the expenditure of the Volunteers would be preserved. Of course it was possible that under the Orders in Council which would be necessary under the Bill means would be taken to see that the Comptroller and Auditor-General had full access to all the books and papers of the different associations. At present he had access to the accounts of the Volunteer corps for the purpose of examination.
§ MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH
said he would like to see that statement in the Bill itself if it could be got in. He would have preferred to have something in a clause to get the Treasury into a more prominent position than it occupied in the Bill. He hoped that before the House finally parted with the Bill more information would be given on that point. It was really impossible to come to any conclusion as to how far the control of the House was weakened until they had an opportunity of seeing the Estimates in the form they were to take. He understood from an Answer given by the right hon. Gentleman that the expenditure was to be a matter between the Army Council and the County Associations. He did not very much care how the Army Council got their information from the County Associations. What he wanted to know before the Bill passed was how the Estimates for the year were to be placed before the House of Commons. Until they really saw the form the Estimates were going to take it was impossible to feel satisfied as to the control which the House was to have. The mere statement that the Government was going to proceed on the same lines as in the case of the Volunteers was to his mind unsatisfactory. When they were making a big new departure, not only in their military organisation, but in the control which the House was to have over the future organisation, he thought they were bound to proceed with the greatest caution. He appealed to the Secretary 1673 of State for War to give, if possible, some information which would reassure hon. Members on both sides of the House who at present had considerable doubts as to what wore the real intentions of the War Office on this question. Although they might not all be able to agree as to the merits of the scheme, the right hon. Gentleman would do a good service if he would show that the House of Commons control over expenditure would be retained under the Bill.
§ *MR. McCRAE (Edinburgh, E.)
said the right hon. Member for West Derbyshire had put before the House some reasonable criticisms which might be urged against the proposals of the Secretary of State for War. He hoped that any criticism which he himself had to offer would be useful and helpful to the Government. He would endeavour to strengthen them where they were weak. He thought they were decidedly weak on the question of financial control. The present financial Resolution was not only of first importance but of unusual importance, having regard to the fact that a controversy had been going on for a considerable time between the Army and Parliament on the question of financial control. He thought that the financial control of Parliament was weakened under the provisions of this Bill. That was all the more serious, not only in the light of the controversy to which he referred, but after the statement which the Secretary of State for War made some time ago that he wished to give the military man more freedom from financial control. The right hon. Gentleman wished to give him a free hand as far as possible. He agreed that to a certain extent, perhaps, the present position was not tenable, because there was interference on certain purely military points which should be left to the military man. But he was exceedingly anxious that under this Bill Parliament should retain the control which it had had in the past over the finance of the Army. The finance of the Bill was very much in the nature of a Chinese puzzle, and the reason was that the scheme was based on certain proposals of the Esher Committee which had not been accepted, wisely he thought, in their entirety. The Esher Committee recommended that the County Associations should have com- 1674 plete control of command, training, administration, and finance. The right hon. Gentleman had decided that command and training should be taken away from the County Associations and that finance and administration should remain. He thought the present Resolution raised a much larger question than that—a question of great constitutional importance—because under the Bill, if the Secretary of State so wished, the control of finance and administration was not to be confined to the Territorial Army. Under Clause 2 of the Bill the Secretary of State for War reserved to himself and the King in Council a right to assign to the County Associations control over the finance and administration not only of the Territorial Army but of His Majesty's Military forces. That included the Regulars. To show that it included the Regulars he pointed out that under Clause 1, which was intended to apply only to the Territorial Army, the phrase "military forces other than the Regulars" was adopted. The matter went much further than had been represented by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, because by Clause 2 it was provided thatAn association shall have, exercise, and discharge such powers and duties connected with the organisation and administration of His Majesty's military forces as may for the time being be transferred or assigned to it by order of His Majesty signified under hand of a Secretary of State or, subject thereto, by regulations under this Act.That devolution to the County Associations of the administration and finance of the Regular troops by the Army Council superseded the control of Parliament, and, he submitted, created a situation of great gravity. He came now to the finance of the Territorial Army. And here he might say that the criticisms of the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean were mutually destructive, although they were cheered by hon. Gentlemen opposite. But it did not lie with hon. Gentlemen opposite to make any complaint of want of control, because under the administration of the late Government he could remember when a sum of £10,000,000 was, during the war in South Africa, transferred from one head and spent on another, which enabled the Government of the day to avoid calling a special session of Parliament to vote the money. 1675 The system of finance foreshadowed for the Territorial Army in the different Papers which had been submitted to the House and in the very informing speech of the Financial Secretary to the War Office made the matter much more complicated than the present system. First of all, it was proposed to establish a double system of finance in regard to the Territorial Army running concurrently. The one was to apply to the training of the troops and to be subject to an Army audit. But that only applied to a very small part of the expenditure. The money spent on training the Auxiliary Forces would be much greater in the future than in the past, as all the Volunteers had now the option of going into camp for fifteen days. Last year the sum spent was £336,000 out of a total of £1,700,000, so that the part of the expenditure that was to be subject to the Army audit in future would be a very small proportion of the total sum. The portion of the expenditure that would be under the Army financial control would only apply to fifteen days in the year; while the County Associations would be responsible for the remaining 350 days, and would be exempt from the Army audit or from proper financial control. He submitted that whatever system of financial control was set up it ought to be uniform and should apply to all expenditure. He went further; he would like to see the present system of financial control for the Army made more stringent, rather than relaxed, as it would be under this Bill. What happened last year? The Army Council were asked by the Treasury to give a forecast of what their surplus was likely to be on 22nd March. Seven days before the end of the financial year the Army Council said it would be £690,000. But what was the ascertained result after the close of the financial year? A balance of £1,330,000! He submitted that a system of financial control which could allow such a state of things required to be made more stringent rather than to be relaxed. On the 30th April the Chancellor of the Exchequer arrived at the intermediate figure of £963,000. He submitted that the Bill would slacken financial control, and he certainly deprecated anything in that direction. He agreed with 1676 the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean that there were grave doubts whether the Estimates submitted were sufficient. He was so convinced that the main proposition in the Bill to divide our armed forces into two lines was a good one, that he thought it was worth while paying for it; and he did not think anything was to be gained by under-estimating the expenditure. On the Second Reading of the Bill he pointed out that the original Estimate of £2,889,408 would not at all meet the requirements of the case. An addition of £625,000 had now been admitted to be absolutely necessary, making a total of £3,514.408. He understood that the Financial Secretary to the War Office had stated that there was a sum included for the administration charges of the County Associations. He very much doubted whether sufficient provision had been made for the administration of the several units of a battalion if it included the expenses incurred by the County Associations. Under the present system the commanding officer of the Volunteer battalion was personally responsible for the expenditure of his corps. That system was illogical, and ought to be abolished. It placed too much responsibility on one single man; but at the same time be believed that it tended to efficient administration and very careful expenditure; of the funds of the corps. Every commanding officer felt in honour bound for the success of his corps, and having regard to his own personal liability to see that the affairs of the corps were most carefully administered. He very much doubted, at the same time, whether the proposal to take the responsibility off the commanding officer and lay it on the County Associations would be of very much advantage. At the present time the books of each battalion were open; to inspection. The books of his own battalion had been inspected in detail. By the new proposal the inspection was to be carried out by the County Associations, but there would not be the same direct control if it had to go through the commanding officer to the County Association. His own view was that the County Associations would be a somewhat expensive luxury. There would be a combination of grants-in-aid and of payment by results. That would complicate the 1677 situation. He admitted that a good deal might be said for putting the administrative charges for drill halls and ranges on a separate grant; but his experience on the Public Accounts Committee was that that method would be expensive. In regard to the clothing grants, he quite understood the view of the Secretary for War in framing his estimate. It was not a case of providing a new uniform for every man in the battalion. The right hon. Gentleman only took the annual charge of providing a uniform for 200 men every year for a battalion of 800 men. On that point he thought the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean had pushed his argument too far. The Secretary for War anticipated that he would make a great saving by having the clothing provided through the County Associations; but he was not then providing for a walking out dress. He would put a specific case. In the Infantry Brigade of the City of Edinburgh they had three battalions clothed as a rifle brigade; they had one battalion clothed in the territorial uniform of the district, and another which was a kilted corps. Was the County Association to take in hand the supply of clothing for all those corps or were those corps, as at present, to supply their clothing out of the capitation grant? If the corps were to do the work, he thought the Government were complicating matters by sending money through the County Associations, and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether some form of Army accounting could not be adopted by which the accounts of the corps should be checked through the War Office and not through the Associations. Another point was how the grant of pay to the men when in camp was to be paid. As an administrative measure the Government were going to supply County Associations with money and through them it was to filter to the corps. How was that to be done? Were the Government going to hand over to the commanding officer of the district or to the brigadier in camp the money which was necessary for this purpose? He urged the right hon. Gentleman to do something to make the matter more simple. He wished the scheme success and it was in no unfriendly spirit that he offered these criticisms, but he felt that Parliamentary control would 1678 be lessened by the present proposals. He wished also to draw attention to Clause 3, Sub-section 3, which provided that money paid to a county association should—be applicable to any of the purposes specified in the approved statements in accordance with which the money has been granted, but not otherwise, except with the written consent of the Army Council.Were they going to make the Army Council independent of the control of Parliament? That provision, along with the provision in Clause 2, where the Secretary of State took power to place the finance and administration not only of the Territorial Army but of the Regular Forces under the county associations was such that he could only characterise it as an amazing proposal. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to assure them that the whole scheme with regard to financial control would be reconsidered.
§ MR. HALDANE
said the hon. Gentleman had raised a question of great importance which was entitled to consideration, not only because he was a member of the Public Accounts Committee but because he had great experience on these subjects. The Government were not likely to have left out of account the financial principles which were concerned and which arose out of the constitution of the country, but he thought there were points in which they had overdone the tendency to take away responsibility from the soldier. He was perfectly certain that they would have had greater economy in the past if they had consulted the soldier more about how to effect economy. He pointed to this year's Estimates as some evidence that, in recognising that doctrine, they could not be said to have damaged the public finances. At the same time, they had kept to the law. Under the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1866, a broad principle was laid down which was of immense constitutional importance. Mr. Gibson Bowles, who unfortunately was not in the House, but was worthily represented, had written a pamphlet, in which he had dwelt upon the vast constitutional importance of keeping a check over the soldier. He did not require that reminder, his duty being simply to keep to the principle laid down in the 1679 Exchequer and Audit Act that Parliament did not allow money to be paid out excepting under its own control, and through an officer of Parliament, not an officer of any Department. How had that been pursued in the case of the Army? In the case of the Regular troops it had been pursued to an extent which was impossible in the case of the Auxiliary Forces. In the case of the Auxiliary Forces there was appreciated from the beginning the danger that correspondence between the commanding officers and the War Office would smother the battalions with red-tape, and the result was that Parliament always gave, in the case of the Auxiliary Forces, who had a local habitation, a greater latitude than was allowed to the Regular Forces. For instance, the capitation grant was paid to the commanding officer of the battalion. Parliament simply said, "Produce us a certificate that you have a man" [Several Hon. MEMBERS: An efficient man.] Well, he would say an efficient man. "Produce us a certificate," Parliament said, "that you have got an efficient man, and then you can spend your capitation grant, and you have very large latitude indeed." He thought that had worked well on the whole. He agreed with the hon. Member for East Edinburgh that the latitude allowed to commanding officers had not been abused. In framing their Bill they had to consider that not only past practice, but principle, made it necessary that they should allow a certain amount of latitude, as had been done in the case of the Volunteers, to those who were responsible for the administration and training of the Territorial Force. They had framed their Bill in such a fashion as recognised that principle, but they had done something more. They had gone a certain length in the direction which the hon. Member for East Edinburgh asked in making the control of Parliament more effective than it was in the case of the Volunteer Force, He would have attached more weight to the criticism of his hon. friend had he not observed that he had an Amendment on the Paper to get rid of the powers of the County Associations: his real objection was to the Associations. He was in favour of the old system, which left to the commanding officer still greater latitude than they proposed to give to the associations.
§ *MR. MCCRAE
I do think the County Associations are quite unnecessary, but I am considering this matter purely from the financial standpoint, given the necessity for the Associations.
§ MR. HALDANE
said he would only say that his hon. friend was not strongly biassed in favour of the Associations. When they came to see how the principle had been applied in the Bill, it was necessary to remember that they took the view, and he thought the majority of the House took the view, that the local association, properly administered, was a useful piece of machinery for the purposes of administering, as distinguished from training, these forces. At present, as was pointed out on the Second Reading, when a Volunteer corps went to war the administration rested with the commanding officer; there was no provision for maintaining them from their base. It had no administration. Its administration rested entirely with the Commanding Officer. The Government were trying to get the force into a better shape by separating the business of administration from that of command and training. They proposed to hand over the administrative business to the Associations and the command and training to the proper officers. They had borne in mind that Parliament had always insisted upon the principle that very large latitude should be left to the commanding officers of Volunteers. Under Clause 3 of the Bill the Government had adhered to that principle, but they had increased the control of Parliament by insisting that more particulars should be given by the associations than were at present given by the commanding officers of Volunteers. In the paper which had been circulated in answer to the question—how did they propose to carry out the finance?—it did not represent a formal Estimate—it would be seen that the Government took three possible ways into consideration. They had rejected the lump sum plan and the present Volunteer system of capitation allowance; and they had adopted a modification of the Volunteer system which would give them a much better and more stringent system than existed at the present time. They proposed to ask for the certificate of the general and of the brigadier also as to the efficiency of the units and of the 1681 men who composed them. That condition would produce greater stringency than existed under the present system. They had adopted a system which, he thought, was much more intelligent than the present one, because it was based upon the production of results, on the efficiency of the corps and the men comprising them, whereas under the present, system they gave the capitation grant and allowed unlimited latitude as to how it was to be applied. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had invited another place to make alterations in the Bill which would produce what he considered very material results. In that other place there were very eminent military authorities, and no doubt they would give the Bill thoroughly impartial consideration. But it was not very helpful to invite them to make changes unless they were prepared to go a great deal more into detail than his right hon. friend had done. His right hon. friend had taken exception to what he had called the want of the same financial control as there was in the case of the Regular Army. Did he really mean that they were to repeal the principle, on which Parliament had proceeded for years, of leaving a certain latitude to the Volunteers? If that was so, he thought that had been answered by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
asked whether the latitude was to be left to the commanding officers or to the County Associations. Was the money to be received and spent by the County Associations or by the commanding officers? He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the whole of the money was to be paid by the County Association and accounted for by it.
§ MR. HALDANE
said that was not quite so. The money was divided into two parts, and if the right hon. Gentleman looked at the section he would see that if they wanted an establishment grant that would be paid by the County Association. But a capitation grant would be paid by the colonel of the force, but they would not take a certificate except, from the County Associations.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
said that was not quite his point. His point was not as to who would give the certificates, but who was going to receive and spend the money. The right hon. Gentleman had said the money was to be received and spent by the County Association, but in answer to the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean he said he had no real wish that the colonel commanding the regiment should not have the same power as before. He therefore asked whether the colonel commanding would have the same power of spending money.
§ MR. HALDANE
said that all the money was to be paid to the associations, and the associations would spend the money. The associations would have to produce the certificates. No doubt, when they got far enough down, the colonel of the corps must to some extent handle the money, but he would be accountable to the association, and the association would have to account for him. They substituted the associations for the old commanding officers. In that way they introduced a much more searching system of financial control than now existed, because they would call for certificates from independent generals and brigadiers as to the efficiency of the unit. Their purpose had been to introduce a system of finance which would be more stringent, but would adhere to the principle of leaving latitude to the local administration. The right hon. baronet had referred to doleful instances of things that had come to light under the searching investigation of the Public Accounts Committee. But they would come to light still more readily under the Government's system, because there would be a much more efficient check. It had been said that enough money had not been taken for adjutants. At the present time there were twenty or thirty Volunteer battalions who had adjutants of a voluntary character, and he hoped that system would grow. But he supposed that there would be about 280 adjutants at the outside.
§ MR. HALDANE
said he was not dealing with the present system. He was 1683 referring to the number of adjutants there would be in this force of 300,000 men.
§ SIR HOWARD VINCENT (Sheffield, Central)
asked whether the right hon. Gentleman proposed to break up a large number of the existing units. Would he say how many units would be established in the new Territorial Army?
§ *SIR CHARLES DILKE
asked whether it was proposed at once to get rid of a large number of battalions in order to reduce the number of units in the way suggested in the Estimates.
§ MR. HALDANE
said his hon. friend the Financial Secretary had aleady explained that there must be a transition period. As the existing force diminished, the other would grow, and that process would be worked out gradually and must occupy some time. The number of adjutants they should require was 280. and he had the details which he could give if it was thought necessary. It was perhaps enough to say that having given that figure, any Member of the House could make his own calculations. As regarded the camp allowance, later in the debate his hon. friend, who had great experience in these matters, would make a statement. As regarded the allowances for food and other matters the calculations had been made, not by members of the Army Council merely, not by soldiers who did not understand the Volunteers, but by the most skilled Volunteer officers who worked out their calculations on the best information they could get. The House might take it from him that the accounts had been arrived at, not with any intention of concealing anything, not not with any intention of putting forward estimates which would afterwards have to be exceeded, but upon the footing that they were endeavouring to put before the House a fair answer to the question, "What is the largest sum you are likely to spend?" and they had taken the estimate upon awar footing. That had been complained of, but they would have had a great deal more complaint if they had taken it on a peace footing.
§ *MR. MCCRAE
said the right hon. Gentleman had not answered the question 1684 as to extending to the County Associations financial and administrative control over the Regular forces.
§ MR. HALDANE
said the expenses of the associations and other matters would be purely incidental. If the associations were asked to undertake regular military duties the financial system would have to be extended. The question of the bounties did not come into this Resolution at all.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
said he would like to ask hon. Gentlemen who had listened to the debate and the explanations of the Government whether they really understood what financial control the House of Commons would be able to exercise in future. Were the printed explanations really worth the paper they were printed on? What Parliamentary control would there be in future over this very important and growing part of our military expenditure? The Secretary of State assumed that, if he applied to the Territorial Army the same system of finance that had been in the past applied to the Volunteers, he would not be open to criticism. But he must remember that the new Territorial Army was going to be something altogether different from the old Volunteers. In the first place, the Territorial Army was to include a considerable portion of the old Militia, and the audit of the accounts of the old Militia had always been on the strictest Army basis, and was not subject to the exceptions and limitations which applied to the Volunteers. The War Secretary said, "You must allow the commanding officers of Volunteer units considerable latitude, and if you attempt to exercise over them the kind of control that you exercise over the finances of the Regular Army, you will make the working of this scheme impossible." But it now appeared that the latitude was not to be allowed to the commanding officers, but to the County Associations, and all the correspondence which might have gone on between the commanding officers and the War Office, would now have to go on between the commanding officers and the associations. Parliament therefore, would, have no control to see that the money it voted was expended on the objects for which it was voted. 1685 The Financial Secretary had sat for many years on the Public Accounts Committee, and it had been his pleasure to sit with him for a short time on that body. He wondered what the hon. Gentleman thought of the finance of this Army scheme. He had written a memorandum, he had made a speech, but he had not given them his opinion. He would be surprised if the hon. Gentleman, whose intervention in the debates in behalf of financial control had not been infrequent, and whose opinions were on record, approved of the system proposed to be established under this Bill. What was to happen? He did not speak of payments for training. They, he understood, would be added in some way to the expenses of the Regular Forces. That was perfectly satisfactory, and was a change of importance, as the hon. Gentleman had rightly said. He was not dealing with that or criticising it. He was speaking only of the money to be paid to the County Associations. He ventured to say that Parliament would have no control over that expenditure, and would not be able to say whether it had been devoted to the purposes for which it had been voted. The money would be audited, no doubt; but the Parliamentary audit to which they attached importance was not merely an audit which showed that there were vouchers for every item of expenditure, but it was an audit which showed that the money had gone to the objects for which Parliament had voted it. That they would not see under this Bill. There was no provision for it. What was the position under Clause 3? It was that the association should submit to the Army Council his statement of necessary requirements, and all the payments by the Army Council to the association were to be made on the basis of the statement of requirements in so far as they were approved by the Army Council. Then Sub-section 3, which the right hon. Gentleman said was very stringent in its terms, and which he pointed to as setting up a special safeguard, said—All money so paid to an association shall, subject to regulations under this Act, be applicable to any of the purposes specified in the approved statements in accordance with which the money has been granted, but not otherwise except with the written consent of the Army Council.In the first place let him observe that the money might be spent "otherwise," pro- 1686 vided the Army Council gave its written consent, without Parliament knowing anything whatever about it. Where was the Parliamentary control? The Financial Secretary had given them some idea of the forme. They would pay the allowance per efficient man, for instance, to the County Association. The estimate was based on the assumption that they had so many Yeomanry and so many Infantry within the county. What control had Parliament to see that the money went to the Infantry or to the Yeomanry? Why could not the County Association take the money voted for the Infantry and apply it to the Yeomanry, or take the money voted for the Yeomanry and apply it to the Infantry? The County Association might spend the money for any purpose specified in an approved statement. They did not need any regulations: the Bill said that the County Association might devote the money paid to them to any of the purposes approved by the Army Council; Parliament had no control, and even if there were regulations, Parliament would have no control over those regulations. The money which Parliament intended for Infantry might be spent on Yeomanry, or vice versa. Suppose there were three specific purposes, and a sum of money was allotted in respect of each. There was no reason why the association should not spend the whole of the money on one of those purposes, and neglect the other two. As the Bill stood, he did not think that oven the consent of the Army Council was necessary; but without consent the association might do exactly what they pleased with the money.
§ THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. CHARLES HOBHOUSE,) Bristol, E.
pointed out that all the money paid to the County Associations was subject to the regulations under the Act, and those regulations were subject to the consent of the Treasury.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
said he could not agree with that reading of the Bill. As the clause stood no regulations were necessary, and the associations could do as he had stated. With the consent of the Army Council these associations could do exactly what they pleased with the money which Parliament voted. Parliament would have 1687 voted the money, the associations would proceed to spend it, and the control of Parliament would be gone. What audit would there be of these funds? The right hon. Gentleman had stated that they could not have a stricter audit than they had at present, but he did not think the present control was at all satisfactory. The Reports of the Public Accounts Committee showed that there had been misappropriations—he meant, of course, honest misappropriations—of money which Parliament had voted. But that was not all. Was the present, system satisfactory from the point of view of the Volunteers? He had had to bring before the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the case of the commanding officer of a Worcestershire battalion who had been surcharged for the first time for a particular expenditure on behalf of his battalion, and he had been made personally liable for it. He had appealed to the Secretary for War to relieve him of that charge. Under the present system they exercised a spasmodic, irregular, and arbitrary control, and that was not good for the Volunteers or for the maintenance of the control of Parliament over expenditure. He contended that if Parliament was to have any control over expenditure they must appropriate the money within certain limits to particular objects and guard against its transference from one object to another. With regard to the form of the Votes, the accepted rule of procedure was that if any serious change was contemplated the approval of the Public Accounts Committee should be obtained before the Vote was presented to Parliament. He understood the Secretary for War to say that that would be done in this case.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
said he was obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that admission. Might he suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should go a little further? What they all wanted to know in regard to the Territorial Army was what it would cost when it was in working order. Could they not have the whole cost of the Territorial Army put into one Vote? Hitherto the Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteers had been put into one Vote, but the right hon. Gentleman excluded 1688 stores, artillery, ammunition, and things of that kind, which had hitherto been charged on other Votes, and he did not propose to include them in the Vote for the Territorial Army. He knew that that was done with a desire to give the House the fullest possible information, but he was convinced that the very trouble that had been taken to inform the House often only succeeded in misleading it. In the case of the Somaliland Expedition, for instance, there was every desire to give the House all information, but owing to the way the Estimates were cast, the Government never could give the House an estimate of the actual cost of that expedition by itself. He thought that was most unsatisfactory, and he therefore invited the right hon. Gentleman to consider the possibility of collecting the whole cost of the Territorial Army into the same Vote. He wished also to say a word or two about the Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman wanted to tell them what the cost of the new Territorial Army would be, and he had given an estimate of the running cost, but he had given no estimate of the initial cost. He did not know whether hon. Members realised the kind of capital expenditure involved in the organisation of the Army. He was quite certain that if this scheme was to be made effective, involving as it did a much more extensive use of depots, very large capital expenditure must be incurred. And what was going to be the position in regard to the Volunteer drill-halls? Would they all be handed over free, or would the debt due upon them be considered a charge on future capitation grants? He understood that when they robbed the old sinking fund they did so in order to wipe out the Volunteer debts, and in order that in future there should be no such debts. They were now told that new drill-halls, could not be built for the new Territorial Army by the Government, althought they might make grants for that purpose through the County Associations. That reply had left the whole question in a state of confusion. If the taking over of the debts on the drill-halls was not done with the object of freeing them from debt, what was the object? Why should they now restart the system of borrowing money where new drill-halls were required? He confessed that even after what had been said by the Secretary of State for 1689 War he retained his scepticism as to the value of the estimates which had been given. He did not believe it would be possible to work the scheme even for the services at present contemplated within the limits of the estimated expenditure. He was quite certain that if they were going to have a territorial system the amount of money which they would have to spend was in no way fully indicated by the Estimates. In regard to depots and drill-halls he pressed particularly for an answer. In the matter of depots, the right hon. Gentleman in the early stage might be able to scrape along, though they were at present inconvenient and insufficient, but the expenditure on new depots would grow just in proportion as the scheme proceeded and succeeded, and thereby a great capital obligation would be incurred for which the right hon. Gentleman had made no provision, and which he was leaving others to provide when they came after him.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
asked whether the depots, in view of what had been said by the Inspector-General of Recruiting, provided proper accommodation for the third battalions. Was it the kind of accommodation which would make the third battalions respect themselves, and respected in the eyes of the nation? Another point to which he wished to direct attention had been referred to by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, but it had not been touched upon by the Financial Secretary. The Secretary of State for War definitely pledged himself last night that the position of the Yeomanry should be substantially as comfortable under the new scheme as it had been in the past. The right hon. Gentleman said he meant to have only one standard of comfort in future, and that standard must be the 5s. 6d. standard of the Yeomanry. He had indicated that he could do it more cheaply, but it was to be the 5s. 6d. standard. The right hon. Gentleman might be successful in getting 5s. 6d. worth for 4s., but that meant a great levelling up for which he saw no provision made. That was one of many points at which he believed the scheme 1690 would break down. The only chance for the financial prophecies not proving false would be that the Territorial Army should never come into existence.
§ *MR. GODDARD (Ipswich)
said he was very much disturbed by the line the debate had taken in regard to the financing of the Territorial Army, and hoped some clearer assurances would be given to the House by the right hon. Gentleman than it had yet received that there would be no lowering of the Parliamentary control over the finance. He confessed that the Secretary of State for War had not made that satisfactory to his mind yet. It seemed to him that there would be large sums paid out over which Parliament would have no control at all—he meant sums other than those which were being paid out now under the head of the Volunteer Force. If Parliament was justified in one thing more than another, it was in protesting against any withdrawal of its right to control the finances of the different Departments. He felt doubt on this subject on account of a remark which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. He understood him to say that if more confidence had been placed in the military authorities, and if they had not been supervised quite so much in the past, there would have been greater economy.
§ MR. HALDANE
said he had saved at least £1,000,000 this year by adopting that plan, and the control of Parliament was as great as ever.
§ *MR. GODDARD
said he was not disputing that fact. The right hon. Gentleman had suggested that that might be carried out to a much greater degree than at present, and that if the military men had more liberty greater economy could be effected. He was very doubtful about that himself. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee of long standing he did not think that that statement was justified by experience. Cases had constantly come under the observation of that Committee which did not seem to warrant the suggestion that there would be greater economy if there was loss observation and less control by the Audit Department. More control and not less was wanted than at present. It appeared to him that under the financial 1691 arrangements of the Bill there was an exaggerated amount of virement—the power of transferring money voted for one purpose to another purpose with the sanction of the Treasury. Up to the present time that form of transfer could only be done with the sanction of the Treasury, but under the financial proposals of the Bill the same power was given to the Army Council. Personally he had always said that he had great doubts as to the value of the principle of virement. It involved one of those practices which he had always considered dangerous, and it seemed to him most undesirable to extend the principle.
§ SIR HOWARD VINCENT
said it vas a great comfort to him that such financial authorities as the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean and the hon. Member for East Edinburgh had as much doubt about the financial arrangements of the Bill as he had himself. He had endeavoured to follow the speeches of the Secretary of State for War, and he had read the numerous Papers which had been issued, but he had not been able to make head or tail of the finance of the scheme. In taking that view of what the hon. Member for East Edinburgh called a Chinese puzzle he felt that he was in extremely good company. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the best course would be to withdraw the Bill. As a practical man he must recognise that they were wasting their time to a considerable extent. The constitution of the County Associations had not been discussed, and the scheme was being forced through by the guillotine. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had said that it was quite impossible to think that the Bill could pass in its present form. If the view that the Bill should be withdrawn did not commend itself to the right hon. Gentleman, he would like more enlightenment as to the finance of the measure. The scheme had been launched with promises of economy on the present system, which cost £4,500,000. The new scheme was to cost £2,800,000, but already an approximate estimate showed that there were additions of about £625,000. Anyone who analysed this additional cost to the estimates would arrive at the conclusion so clearly stated by two hon. 1692 Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House, that the amount had been under-estimated to a very considerable extent. The camp allowance and the supplement for rations and staff was put at £170,000; but was it possible that after the declarations and undertakings of the Secretary of State as to the comfort that was to be provided for the Territorial Army—including the Volunteers, Yeomanry and Militia—that anything like £170,000 would be adequate for that purpose? As to the adjutants for the Territorial Forces, he was exceedingly glad and grateful that the Secretary of State had given way on that point. His conviction was that the withdrawal of the adjutants provided by the Regular Army would have been the greatest blow that could be imagined for the Auxiliary Forces. But he very much doubted whether the amount allotted for the adjutants, £140,000, was anything like sufficient the original estimate was £210,000 for the units of cavalry and infantry; hut nothing was said as to artillery and engineers; and greater importance was now attached to field artillery than even to cavalry and infantry. The House would notice a very serious statement made by the right hon. Gentleman in referring to this matter that day. The right hon. Gentleman said in effect that the present units would be no guide to the number of units of the Territorial Force. That meant that all the past expense and labour incurred by commanding officers in providing drill halls, ranges, and exercise grounds would be thrown away, while many of the units would be disbanded, or amalgamated with others. At the least, the lessening of the responsibility of commanding officers would seriously damage the efficiency of what was now the Volunteer Force. If the right hon. Gentleman had consulted commanding officers all over the country he would have found that there was nothing more advantageous to the Volunteer Force than the responsibility of the commanding officers; and if that responsibility was to be transferred to the County Associations a very different state of things would soon prevail. No provision was made for an adequate staff of sergeant instructors necessary for training. He had endeavoured to obtain an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that the sergeant instructors would be retained, but he had got no satisfactory answer. 1693 He maintained that the new scheme could not be made to work unless a full and ample proportion of sergeant instructors was given to each battalion. As to the uniforms, under the original plan it was only proposed to give one field-service dress; but not only was an out-walking dress required, but a brigade dress; and it was impossible to suppose that the Territorial Army would be content with less. There were many other items which the right hon. Gentleman had neglected to take into account, as to which, he thought, Parliament ought to be informed before it passed the Bill. For instance, was the pay of fourteen divisional generals to be charged to the Territorial Army?
§ MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE
said that if the hon. and gallant Gentleman looked at the Paper 3,296, page 5, and at the first two columns at the left hand he would find the information.
§ SIR HOWARD VINCENT
said he did not see anything there about fourteen divisional generals. It was just possible that the Under-Secretary for India, having sufficient leisure, had been able to evolve that, but he had not been able to find it.
§ MR. HALDANE
said the hon. and gallant Gentleman might take it from him that the full salary of a major general for each division was provided for in the Estimates.
§ SIR HOWARD VINCENT
said he was much obliged to the right hon Gentleman for his explanation. He complained further as to the absence of details in regard to rations and equipments and said there was nothing in the Estimates in regard to capital expenditure for drill halls, ranges, and exercise grounds. There was no doubt that much pressure would be brought to bear on the War Office and the Secretary of State to enlarge the Estimates to an enormous extent to carry the scheme through.
§ MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE
said he was sure that no one present would grudge in any way the time spent on this important discussion; and he could assure the House that there was no reluctance on the part of the occupants of the Treasury Bench to give 1694 information to the House which would enable it to exercise its chief function of controlling expenditure. He thought the right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean sometimes devoted his manifold talents to scaring his own friends somewhat unnecessarily, and that he had done so on this occasion. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the provision for clothing was ridiculously underestimated; and the House would pardon him if he went somewhat fully into the details of that particular item. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to what he apparently believed to be inconsistent Answers given by the Secretary of State for War to Questions put during the present session. The Answers were all correct, but they showed the difficulty of dealing with particular items apart from the general scheme. The scheme must be considered as a whole, and they must have perfectly clear in their own minds what uniforms they were going to give to the Territorial Force and what they were going to pay for that purpose. It was proposed to give two suits of uniform to every one of the 160,000 men of the infantry branch of the Territorial Army to start with. The first uniform, known as the service dress, would cost 66s. 10d., and that included jacket, trousers, putties, cap, and greatcoat. It did not include the cost of a pair of boots, but the cost of soleing a pair of boots, the reason being that as the Territorial soldier would only come out for fourteen days training it could not be expected that the State should provide him with a pair of boots; but it was reasonable that the pair of boots he used in civil life should be resoled it the cost of the State. For the second suit there was an allowance of 30s. The cost of providing uniforms for each man was, therefore, £4 16s. 10d., and the total estimated expenditure for the 160,000 men was £780,000.
§ MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE
said it was the estimate of the Army Clothing Department, and from his own experience he thought it could be done a great deal cheaper.
§ MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE
said that £720,000 was provided in the Estimate for clothing, or £60,000 less than the apparent cost of £780,000. The deficit was explained by the fact that some of the articles—belts for instance—would not need renewing during the four years of service. It was said that the provision of £140,000 a year for the Regular adjutants for the Territorial Force was an under-estimate of the cost. On the contrary, after providing for 280 adjutants at £420 each, it would leave £20,000 for unforeseen contingencies. But a much more important point was the control which was to be exercised by the House over the expenditure of the money provided for the Territorial Force. He recognised the overwhelming importance of the full control of expenditure by the House; and if he thought there was any lowering of that control under the Bill he would not be there advocating it. The words of Clause 3 were clear on that point They provided that the County Association could not vary the application of the money paid to them, even though they had the written consent of the Army Council, without the approval of the Treasury. The words of the Bill were—All money so paid to an association shall, subject to regulations under this Act, be applicable to any of the purposes specified on the approved statements in accordance with which the money has been granted, but not otherwise except with the written consent of the Army Council.If the words which it was proposed to leave out were omitted the County Associations could spend money on the various objects for which it was voted without any consent of the Army Council, but the moment they put in the words—Subject to the regulations of this Act,which brought in the Treasury, they would realise that they could not vary the application of the money. He had often from the opposite side of the House been as jealous as any hon. Gentleman opposite that the expenditure put at the disposal of the Departments of State should be fully known, and as fully under the control of the House as possible. He believed the words to which he had drawn attention met all proper requirements of the House. He believed they met every objection put forward by the right hon. Member for East Worcestershire, and all 1696 he could say was that even if the right hon. Gentleman's most stringent conditions were not observed it was unquestionable that the control over the new Territorial Force would be infinitely greater than the present control over the commanding officers of the Volunteer Force. He had endeavoured to make clear those two most important points, and trusted he had succeeded. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the transfer of depots and of the maintenance of drill halls. The right hon. Gentlemen would remember that at the beginning of this year the Government took £500,000, which enabled them to take over from the Loans Commissioners the mortgages of the drill halls. If those drill halls came under the control of the County Associations the mortgages would be wiped off, which would give the drill halls to them free of debt, and out of the funds placed at their disposal they would have to maintain those drill halls just in the same way as some economical—and he used the word advisedly—Volunteer corps managed to maintain their drill halls out of the money they derived from the State. The right hon. Gentleman would understand that the depots did not come within the Territorial Forces at all. They were outside because they were raised for the purpose of training battalions. He hoped he had made these matters clear and that the House would now come to a decision.
§ COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY (Shropshire, Newport)
said he was very much puzzled with regard to certain points connected with the financial position of the County Associations, and, therefore, desired to put one or two propositions to the right hon. Gentleman who might signify his assent, or dissent, by a motion of his head. In the first place, he understood that these County Associations were to have nothing to do with the settlement of the pay and emoluments of the officers and men of the Territorial Force. Was that so?
§ COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY
said he had only put it in that way to save time. It was a very important point, because it touched the financial portion of the 1697 scheme. He hoped it was true that the County Associations would have no control over the Regular Forces until some fresh development took place. He hoped it was also true that they would have nothing to do with discipline, and that it would be absolutely out of the power of any County Association in any sense whatever to send the hat round for any expenditure on behalf of the force. If that he so, the County Associations would draw every penny of income which they administered through the Army Council, and with the consent of the Army Council, and he understood the Army Council would have to go through and assent to every item of the expenditure. He therefore assumed that the Army Council was really acting under the responsibility of the Secretary of State for War.
§ MR. HALDANE
said he was unable to put it so shortly. The Secretary of State was only a member of the Army Council, but in another way he was responsible to Parliament, and in that sense no doubt he would control the Army Council.
§ *MR. SPEAKER
pointed out that the right hon. and gallant Member could now only deal with the financial question and not with the general objects of the Bill.
§ COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY
said the powers of the County Associations seemed to touch the financial question more closely than the Government were willing to allow. He understood that the County Associations were to be empowered to put out contracts for the supply of the different necessities for the Territorial soldiers in their jurisdiction, and for drill halls and rifle ranges, but he did not understand what security they had to give to the contractors. They had no capital moneys of their own and he did not know whose credit they had to pledge.
§ MR. HALDANE
said it could not, under the clause in the Bill, be done without the assent of the Army Council.
§ *MR. SPEAKER
reminded the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that that was the time to make speeches, and not to ask questions. He also reminded him that the House was now discussing the financial Resolution; that the position of the County Associations was not now before the House. This Resolution referred to the provision and payment of money to be devoted by Parliament to the Territorial Forces.
§ COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY
expressed his regret that he should have contravened the rules of order. He would pass from the County Associations and allude to a question with which he had been closely concerned, namely, that which arose at the end of the debate on the previous evening on the question of camp allowance. He desired to put forward what he understood to be the pledged position of the right hon. Gentleman. He understood from the right hon. Gentleman that the cavalry of the Territorial Army when in camp would not suffer in their substantial comforts through any reduction of pay. He would not, he thought, be far wrong when he put the difference in the cost of those substantial comforts at 3s. per man, and on that estimate, on the territorial cavalry, which was to be 50,000, the right hon. Gentleman would have to spend £7,000. If the right hon. Gentleman had to give those substantial comforts to the remaining 250,000 of the Territorial Force, to carry out his pledge he would have to spend £37,500.
§ LORD BALCARRES (Lancashire, Chorley)
said he did not think that the speeches of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean and of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh had yet received a reply. There was the question of the ordinary service dress. The Under-Secretary for India had told them that the cost of the new dress for the Infantry, including great coat, helmet, &c, would be 66s. 10d., and that 9d. would be given as boot allowance. The right hon. Gentleman, when asked a question on the 8th April by the hon. Member for Darlington, stated that the cost of the new suit, including great coat, helmet, cap, putties, &c, would be £2 17s. 3d. The right hon. Gentleman's 1699 colleague had just said that it would cost 66s. 10d.
§ LORD BALCARRES
said he certainly had not understood that it was for both suits, but only for the new service dress, In the revised Estimate the cost of the walking-out dress was £113,000 for 300,000 men. That worked out at 7s. per walking-out dress, which was an absurd sum. He appealed to hon. Members whether 7s. for a walking-out dress for any member of a Volunteer Force was not a perfectly grotesque figure. The upkeep of the Service dress was an annual expense. What was the capital cost going to be? Why was it not put into the Estimate?
§ LORD BALCARRES
said they had settled to amalgamate the forces in the next four years. Every article of costume, barring belts and, perhaps, haversacks, would have to be replaced, and that would mean a large capital outlay. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to give 300,000 men a walking-out dress which would cost 7s. per man. Everybody knew that the walking-out dress of a Volunteer up to the present had cost anything from £2 up to four guineas. It was not the fault of the Secretary of State that he could not explain the matter. It was utterly misleading to put in the Estimate that they were going to supply 300,000 men with a walking-out dress that was to cost 7s. per man. The Estimate would have to be revised. They had already had a second edition of it, and the sooner they got a third edition the better able they would be to ascertain what was likely to be the approximate cost. The right hon. Gentleman had omitted to answer the question of the hon. Member opposite who wanted to know what the parade dress was going to be. That was an important point with a direct financial bearing. The right hon. Gentleman had announced that night, for the first time, although many questions had been previously asked, that the number of Infantry battalions in the new territorial scheme was to be 168. That involved the disbandment of scores of existing Volunteer 1700 regiments. Suppose they had, in a given area, five battalions, two of which were strong, and three required to be disbanded. Was the right hon. Gentleman going to merge those men, with different uniforms, into the new battalion? If that was done, it would make the corps ridiculous. The right hon. Gentleman ought to tell them frankly what he meant to do on this question. There were two items which the right hon. Gentleman said did not come within, the scope of the Resolution. The first item was the depots, and the second was the bounties. The outlay which would be necessary on the depots in the next five or six years would perhaps amount to millions of money. Many of the depots were in an in sanitary condition and. badly constructed. They would have to be put right, and some would have to be rebuilt substantially, owing to the requirements of the Territorial Force. That was a great outlay, for which this measure was directly responsible. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Resolution did not cover the bounties. He did not deny that, but it provided for all the expenses of raising and maintaining the Territorial Force. He had always understood that the bounties would come within this provision; he now understood they did not. They had always been, told that the fundamental principle of the Bill was to make two lines—the Territorial Army and the Regular Army. The persons to whom the bounties were to be paid were boys of seventeen or eighteen years of age, who would certainly not be members of the Regular Army, and, if they were not members of the Territorial Army, then the scheme between the two Lines broke down. They had 60,000 or 70,000 persons to whom they had to pay bounties, but who were neither in the Territorial Force, nor members of the Regular Army. Although that might not affect the finance with which they were now concerned, it had a remarkable bearing on the general statement of the Secretary of State. And what about the storage of equipments? They were told that day for the first time that an immense number of the battalions were to be disbanded. He dared say that might be right, but it would have a decided financial effect on the question of storage of equipments. At the present moment small battalions had small store houses for rifles, and so 1701 on. If they disbanded those small battalions, as would occur very likely in a country town, they risked not getting recruits in future for the Territorial Force. During the last dozen years there had been Volunteer Corps disbanded for inefficiency, or some other reason, but if the righthon. Gentleman cared to inquire of those concerned, he would find that such was the bitterness of feeling in those places where the regiments had been disbanded, that, ever since, it had been impossible to obtain any recruits for new corps. Besides causing bitterness and heartburning by disbanding the corps, they would have to take over the small store houses, while in the large towns they would have to make the store houses bigger. That was a substantial outlay, for which the right hon. Gentleman had made no provision whatever. They had heard three speeches from the Treasury Bench. He thought it would have been courteous to the supporters of the Government if some reply had been given to their criticisms as to the levelling up of the standard of the territorial infantry to that now prevailing in the Yeomanry. It was a big subject, and if the right hon. Gentleman carried out his pledge it would cost a great deal of money, the standard of comfort, whatever its costs, now prevailing in the Yeomanry, would be in future the standard of comfort for the infantry of the Territorial Force. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean by that the standard of the mess? He presumed that he did, because that was one of the elements of the measure of comfort. Then another standard was the number of men accommodated per camp. If inquiries were made, it would be found that the space allotted in each camp for the Militia or Volunteers was considerably smaller than that usually allotted to the Yeomanry, and the tent accommodation must be enormously enlarged in consequence. That was another thing omitted from the Estimate. In the original scheme there was an extraordinary provision, which he thought a very dangerous one, that only 50 per cent. of the sergeants and those below sergeant's rank were to have separation allowance when in camp. That could not stand. If they picked out one half of the sergeants and corporals for separation allowance they would create an impossible state of things. They could not penalise men in that way; they could not 1702 make separation allowance a good conduct badge. In the case of two men, both long service men, both married, they had to choose between those two to whom they would give the separation allowance. Such a proceeding would inflict incalculable damage on the morale of the corps, and the right hon. Gentleman must make up his mind either to take away the separation allowance altogether, or to give it to all those who, under given conditions, would be entitled to receive it. There was no provision for rifle clubs or rifle ranges. A rifle range had to be near to the village in which the members of the club lived, and it was a very difficult thing to provide even a miniature range. The Government had made no provision for that at all. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman cordially for having put £140,000 down for Regular Adjutants. That item in itself meant the efficiency of thousands of men. He wished to know if that £140,000 was the only item involved. In the original scheme the right hon. Gentleman told them that the idle solicitor would be able to do the Adjutant's work, and he contemplated withdrawing all the Regular Adjutants and adding them to the Regular Army so as to reduce the shortage of officers. He now proposed to preserve largely the efficiency of the Volunteers by maintaining the professional Adjutant, but the shortage of officers for thy Regular Army remained. That shortage had to be made good; it would involve a fresh charge upon the Army funds, and he would like to know the cost of that item. There were two more omissions in regard to rifles and guns. The House were aware that the rifles were being converted, and this year one-seventh of the rifles to be used by the Territorial Force were being converted. If the right hon. Gentleman meant to convert all these rifles before they became obsolete, he would have to spend a great deal of money during the next financial year. He hoped he was not going to take seven years to accomplish that. Therefore he would probably have to provide for another five sevenths or six-sevenths of the total cost of conversion next year, and that was totally unprovided for. The same with the guns. The artillery Volunteers were to be armed with the fifteen-pounders, and that gun had also to be converted, and only £10,000 was provided for the purpose. That would 1703 only convert thirty-six guns, and 400 would remain to be dealt with. Consequently less than 10 per cent. of the total guns would be converted this year. It was ridiculous to suppose that they were going to take ten years for the conversion of those guns; therefore he assumed that during the next financial year they would have to provide £90,000 to convert the rest. There were other serious omissions from the revised Estimate, such as the bad accommodation in the depots and provision for bounties. There was no reference to storage for equipment, camp and separation allowances, rifle clubs and ranges, the extra cost for officers caused by retaining the adjutants, and service and walking out dress. He would not go into the matter of control because that had been dealt with by previous speakers who had shown the gravity of the position. The distinction between audit and appropriation had not been clearly explained. Even the audit presented very grave difficulties. No rough and ready line could be drawn between administrative expenses and those incurred in camp. The control of the House of Commons over the accounts would be lost. In regard to the Yeomanry, every speaker had gone against the scheme, but they could not expect the Government to give way although, in his opinion, the Government ought to do so. The right hon. Gentleman was asked at Question time if he would submit the form of accounts to the Public
§ Accounts Committee and had given a point-blank refusal.
§ MR. BUCHANAN
said his right hon. friend was asked if he would refer to the Public Accounts Committee the Statement of Requirements recently issued, and he replied that that Paper was only a suggested form to help the discussion of this Bill. He stated that when the Bill had become law and the Estimates had been framed his Estimate would be submitted to the Public Accounts Committee.
§ LORD BALCARRES
said he was glad to hear that statement, and he hoped the Public Accounts Committee would make a recommendation as to the laying of the rules before Parliament and as to the surrender of surpluses, to which no reference had been made. Whatever course was taken the control of Parliament could not be complete until the House of Commons had the right to discuss the rules. Unless the House of Commons was given an opportunity of understanding the real proposals of the Government and the cost involved he ventured to say that the confusion and chaos of the finance of this Army scheme would be considerably increased.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 212; Noes, 82. (Division List No. 188.)1707
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Brigg, John||Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Brodie, H. C.||Cotton, Sir H. J. S.|
|Adkins, W. Ryland D.||Brooke, Stopford||Cowan, W. H.|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh)||Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Bryce, J. Annan||Cremer, William Randal|
|Astbury, John Meir||Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Crombie, John William|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Buckmaster, Stanley O.||Crooks, William|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Crosfield, A. H.|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Burt, Rt, Hon. Thomas||Davies, David (Montgomery Co.|
|Barker, John||Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.||Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)|
|Barlow, John Emmott (Som'rset||Byles, William Pollard||Davies, Timothy (Fulham)|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Cairns, Thomas||Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)|
|Beauchamp, E.||Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight||Duckworth, James|
|Bell, Richard||Cawley, Sir Frederick||Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Cheetham, John Frederick||Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)|
|Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd||Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)|
|Billson, Alfred||Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)||Elibank, Master of|
|Black, Arthur W.||Cleland, J. W.||Esslemont, George Birnie|
|Boulton, A. C. F.||Clough, William||Evans, Samuel T.|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Everett, R. Lacey|
|Brace, William||Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.||Fenwick, Charles|
|Bramsdon, T. A.||Corbett, C.H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd||Ferens, T. R.|
|Findlay, Alexander||Lynch, H. B.||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)|
|Fuller, John Michael F.||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)||Samuel, S. M. (Whitchapel)|
|Fullerton, Hugh||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)|
|Gill, A. H.||M'Callum, John M.||Sears, S. E.|
|Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John||M'Crae, George||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)||Shaw, Rt, Hon. T. (Hawick B.)|
|Grant, Corrie||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||M'Micking, Major G.||Silcock, Thomas Ball|
|Greenwood, Hamar (York)||Mallet, Charles E.||Simon, John Allsebrool|
|Gulland, John W.||Manfield, Harry (Northants)||Sinclair, Rt, Hon. John|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)||Spicer, Sir Albert|
|Haldane, Rt, Hon. Richard B.||Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)||Stanger, H. Y.|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis||Massie, J.||Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)|
|Hart-Davies T.||Micklem, Nathaniel||Steadman, W. C.|
|Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Molteno, Percy Alport||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)|
|Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.||Mond, A.||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)|
|Haworth, Arthur A.||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Stuart, James (Sunderland)|
|Hazel, Dr. A. E.||Murray, James||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)||Myer, Horatio||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Henry, Charles S.||Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)||Nicholls, George||Thomas David Alfred (Merthyr|
|Higham, John Sharp||Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster||Thomasson, Franklin|
|Hobhouse, Charles E. H.||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.|
|Holland, Sir William Henry||Nuttall, Harry||Tomkinson, James|
|Holt, Richard Dinning||Partington, Oswald||Torrance, Sir A. M.|
|Hooper, A. G.||Paul, Herbert||Toulmin, George|
|Horniman, Emslie John||Paulton, James Mellor||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Horridge, Thomas Gardner||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)||Verney, F. W.|
|Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Pearce, William (Limehouse)||Walters, John Tudor|
|Hutton, Alfred Eddison||Philipps, J. Winford (Pembroke||Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)|
|Hyde, Clarendon||Pirie, Duncan V.||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)|
|Idris, T. H. W.||Pollard, Dr.||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)||Watt, Henry A.|
|Jacoby, Sir James Alfred||Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)||Weir, James Galloway|
|Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)||Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Radford, G. H.||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||Raphael, Herbert H.||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax).|
|Kincaid-Smith, Captain||Rendall, Athelstan||Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer|
|Laidlaw, Robert||Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'h||Wiles, Thomas|
|Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)||Richardson, A.||Wills, Arthur Walters|
|Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)||Rickett, J. Compton||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Lamont, Norman||Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)||Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)|
|Lewis, John Herbert||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Robinson, S.||Winfrey, R.|
|Lough, Thomas||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Lupton, Arnold||Rogers, F. E. Newman||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Rowlands, J.||Mr. Whiteley and Mr J. A. Pease.|
|Lyell, Charles Henry||Russell, T. W.|
|Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F.||Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Jowett, F. W.|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.||Courthope, G. Loyd||Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W|
|Balcarres, Lord||Craig, Captain James (Down, E.||Keswick, William|
|Baring, Capt. Hn. G (Winchester)||Dalrymple, Viscount||Kimber, Sir Henry|
|Barnes, G. N.||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers||King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness||Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan||Lea, Hugh Cecil (St, Pancras, E.)|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Fell, Arthur||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Dublin, S.),|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey||Lowe, Sir Francis William|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Fletcher, J. S.||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred|
|Bull, Sir William James||Forster, Henry William||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||Macpherson, J. T.|
|Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.||Haddock, George R.||Magnus, Sir Philip|
|Cave, George||Hamilton, Marquess of||Morpeth, Viscount|
|Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)|
|Cecil Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Edm'ds||O'Grady, J.|
|Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Wore.||Hodge, John||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Clynes, J. R.||Houston, Robert Paterson||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Coehrane Hn. Thos. H. A. E.||Hudson, Walter||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)|
|Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingham||Hunt, Rowland||Percy, Earl|
|Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)||Walsh, Stephen|
|Randles, Sir John Scurrah||Stone, Sir Benjamin||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton||Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||Thorne, William|
|Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)||Tuke, Sir John Batty||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Salter, Arthur Clavell||Valentia, Viscount||Mr. Bowles and Viscount Castlereagh.|
|Seddon, J.||Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)|
|Shackleton, David James||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|