the House of Commons was not a time to decide who were entitled to gra"Chinese compound." They had a right tuities and who were not. That was in to ask for information on these items, and the ordinary routine of the War Office when the Government came down day business; there was no difficulty in decidafter day for millions for the public ser- ing it. It was quite true that these men vice, they would continue to inquire and were paid at a much higher rate than our to criticise. He did not believe that this own soldiers, but so were the Colonials, was a trifling matter-voting money and surely the War Office could have with both hands, and the attitude of the decided earlier that these men were enright hon. Gentleman was not becoming titled to gratuities. There was no reason to him. The right hon. Gentleman why this item should not have come upon would get his money faster by adopting a the ordinary Estimates last year. He different attitude than that which he had wanted to know why the decision to give adopted just now. The Secretary gratuities to the Constabulary had not for War had said that the war had been come to earlier, and why some part, been conducted for the first time on the at least, of these gratuities had not been system of Estimates; but he agreed paid out of the £1,000,000 voted last year. with the hon. Member for King's Lynn that a lump sum might have been better than Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman said that the war was over; but last year when these Estimates were framed these items were not brought in as they should have been. Attention had been drawn to three or four consecutive Supplementary Estimates which showed an increase of 1,000 per cent. on the original Estimate. It was due to the Committee that they should have some explanation of that, and sufficient explanation had not been given. He was still of opinion that these items ought never to have been brought in on this Vote at all. MR. COURTENAY WARNER (Staffordshire, Lichfield) said he quite agreed that some latitude ought to be given to the War Office in regard to their Estimates, but there were limits when every Vote one came to, was found to be largely out, not to a small extent, but two or three times the original Estimate. That was going beyond reasonable latitude. If the Estimates were to be drawn in this loose and careless fashion, it would be better to bring in a lump sum. He did not find fault with the Financial Department of the War Office on this occasion, but what he wanted to know was how it was that the Constabulary were now allotted to receive a gratuity? They had been fighting all through the war. Some of them were the first troops to be engaged, and their claims should have been considered earlier. The war had been over eighteen months, and surely it did not take anything like that MR. MALCOLM (Suffolk, Stowmarket) said that the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken was a very good example of how the time of the House of Commons could be wasted. The hon. Gentleman asked why the troops who were employed the earliest were not paid the earliest. MR. COURTENAY WARNER said he did not ask that Question. MR. MALCOLM said it seemed to be quite immaterial to the hon. Gentleman that the force which was now to be paid was not in existence at the time he supposed it was. He thought the explanation of the Financial Secretary to the War Office was perfectly satisfactory. The hon. Gentleman admitted that there was an oversight at a time of very strenuous vork, and he acknowledged it just as "a poacher turned gamekeeper" would acknowledge it. It was no part of his business to defend the War Office; but he did not see that there was any occasion for the present attack. If British infantry or cavalry were being kept out of their gratuities hon. Gentlemen opposite would be the very first to complain about it. It was perfectly reasonable to expect such an oversight as had occurred, during a period of a great war; and if hon. Gentlemen opposite wished the House of Commons to proceed as the Public Accounts Committee advised by way of Estimates instead of by Votes of Credit they were doing their best to prevent it. The House of Commons ought to be protected against such a display of financial pedantry, and it ought to be allowed to proceed with its business. There had been laxity under circumstances of unprecedented difficulty. He thought that the Report of the Public Accounts Committee entirely disposed of the contention of the hon. Gentleman for King's Lynn. The change in procedure which was now adopted was extremely satisfactory, and was a great improvement on the old method. He certainly would support the War Office. MR. RUNCIMAN (Dewsbury) said that he respected the loyalty of the hon. Gentleman to the permanent officials when he indulged in a defence of the Financial Department of the War Office; but the right hon. Gentleman had admitted that that Department was not what it should be, and he added that the remedy which ought to be applied, and which he thought would shortly be applied, was to provide a proper financial staff. Therefore the right hon. Gentle man should not resent hon. Members on that side of the House expressing a similar opinion. The hon. Gentleman who had just spoken was altogether mistaken regarding the functions of the House of Commons. He appeared to think that it was improper for hon. Gentlemen to discuss small details. The war cost £250,000,000, but even still they had regard to such a comparatively small sum as £100,000, and they objected to the Vote being brought on at that time of day. As long as these Supplementary Estimates continued to be introduced there would be a feeling that they had not yet got to the end of the job. He was not at all sure that when the right hon. Gentleman submitted the Army Estimates that the House of Commons would not be asked to clear up more accounts. He wished to ask a Question of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the distribution of the gratuities to officers who had served in South Africa. He understood that an officer holding a staff appointment was granted the gratuity of his substantive rank in a case where the staff appointment would only have entitled him to a smaller gratuity. He wished to know whether regimental officers who were given local and temporary rank received. similar advantage. For instance, a regimental captain appointed as staff lieutenant would be entitled to £60 gratuity, whereas a regimental lieutenant appointed to the rank of local captain would only be entitled to £27 10s. That was a great inequality, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would inquire into it. SIR A. HAYTER said that only £350,000 was taken in last year's Estimates and £3,000 in the Supplementary Estimates for gratuities. He wished to know where the remainder of the money came from. MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT said the difference was taken out of another Vote. MR. BUCHANAN (Perthshire, E.) thought he could help said he the hon. Gentleman out of his difficulty. Last year the Secretary of State for War took no less than £2,250,000 for gratuities. He respectfully demurred to the Secretary of State for War denouncing perfectly honest and straightforward criticisms. The criticisms were twofold. In the first place the charge should have been foreseen, and, in the second place, the Estimate was really a new item. The right hon. Gentleman himself had admitted that. He said it was not originally intended to give the South African Constabulary gratuities for military service, but that a decision to the contrary had been arrived at. They had a right to ask on what grounds that decision was arrived at, and why it was not stated on the Estimate that it was a perfectly new charge. MR. WHITLEY said that last year the Secretary of State for War took £3,000,000 for gratuities which was spent on other purposes. MR. RUNCIMAN asked when the decision was arrived at. MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER said he could not answer the hon. Gentleman's Question about officers' gratuities, but the decision to pay gratuities to the South African Constabulary was arrived at in June, 1902. MR. RUNCIMAN asked, if it was arrived at in June, 1902, why it did not appear in last year's Estimates. MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER said he had to receive them, and between June and previously explained the matter. The October there was ample time to place money began to be paid immediately the before the House the exact facts of the decision was arrived at, but it could not be case. The point of the complaint was not all paid in one day. The payment occu- the question of whether the money was pied many months. The fact that the to be paid within a particular period, but money was being paid had nothing to do the fact that, by their not being brought with the question of accounting, as it into account in the year, it was taken altocould not be brought into account until gether out of the power of the House to it had all been checked and regulated. criticise these gratuities. He had come The result was that the money was not to the conclusion that it was perfectly brought into account during the year. useless for the House of Commons to Under their existing system of finance, attempt to exercise any control over War money which was actually paid during Office Estimates. He had listened with one year had to be voted the next year. It astonishment when the Financial Secrewas a perfectly familiar transaction, and tary stated that the Treasury had insisted one which took place in every branch that the War Office should make Estimates of the public service. A large part of the and not take a Vote on account, and the money was spent in 1902. but it was not War Office had declared they were incapbrought into account during that year, able of doing what the Treasury required. and the money afterwards appropriated When such relations existed between for it was spent on other purposes. two Departments it was not surprising that these extraordinary Supplementary Estimates should be introduced. The Committee were entitled to some explanation of why the Treasury insisted on the War Office carrying out a financial operation which that Department declared themselves to be incompetent to perform. MR. RUNCIMAN said he thought the right hon. Gentleman did not quite comprehend his Question. What he referred to was not the appropriation of the money but the estimating of the amount. In June, 1902, the War Office knew that gratuities were to be paid to the South African Constabulary. They also knew the number of men that would receive such gratuities, and he could not understand why they did not put the money down on the Estimates. MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER said the Estimates were made up in October, but the accounts for the previous year did not close until the month of November, and the Estimates had to be made without knowing what accounts might be brought in up to the following October. That, he thought, was the explanation of what seemed to be a very puzzling feature on the face of the accounts. MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar) said the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman met some of the points which had been urged with regard to other items, but it did not at all touch the particular question under discussion. In June, 1902, it was known that these gratuities were going to be paid, and the number of men entitled MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER said the hon. Member had asked why, if it was known that these gratuities would become due, they were not included in the original Estimate. As a matter of fact, a very large sum had already been voted by Parliament for gratuities, and it was not known for many months how much of the £3,000,000 which had been set aside would be required. It was thought that that sum would be ample. Claims for gratuities had been coming in daily for months, but at the time there was no anticipation that the sum available would not be amply sufficient. He did not know why this particular war was made the occasion for trying this new system; nor did he recognise the hon. Member's description of internecine war between the two Departments because the Treasury had insisted on a course which the War Office thought there would be difficulty in following. It was decided to make the experiment-he believed with the entire concurrence of the Public Accounts Question put. Committee, and the experiment had been made with results which were, or were not, satisfactory according to the point of view of hon. Members. The Committee divided :-Ayes, 127; Noes, 184. (Division List No. 18.) AYES. Crombie, John William Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Ellis, John Edward (Notts. Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John Price, Robert John Goddard, Daniel Ford Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington) Logan, John William MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham) Priestley, Arthur Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Rose, Charles Day Tennant, Harold John Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E). Trevelyan, Charles Philips Yoxall, James Henry TELLERS FOR THE AYES-Mr. Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk. Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H Lawson, Jn. G. (Yorks., N. R.) Pilkington, Colonel Richard Reid, James (Greenock) Original Question again proposed. MR. BUCHANAN said he wished to ask a question about item K, "Pay, Wages, etc., of Army Service Corps Subordinate Establishments, £230,000." No information was given in the Estimate, but he had gathered that this was another South African charge. In the last general Estimates they were led to believe that they were voting the nominal charges in time of peace. There had been a large charge for war purposes, and until the other day they believed that the country had returned to the ordinary normal expenditure of the Army. Now they were told that it was necessary to double that charge, and that it was due to further expenditure in South Africa, and to the Round, Rt. Hon. James Talbot, Rt. Hn.J.G(Oxf'd Univ. Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward TELLERS FOR THE NOES-Sir Alexander Acland Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes. retention of native employees in connection with military services. He should like to know whether the increased South African charge was in any degree due to the alteration of policy announced in July last as regarded the permanent retention of a much larger force than had been contemplated when the Estimates were introduced by the Secretary of State for India. He moved the reduction of the Vote by £1,000. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item, Vote 1, Sub-head K (Pay, Wages, etc., of Army Service Corps. Subordinate Establishments), be reduced by £1,000."-(Mr. Buchanan.) MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT explained that this money was paid almost |