under whatever circumstances it must be manifest that there must be a profit out of the working of the line. usage. *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER said that in answer to the hon. Gentleman who had spoken he meant to state that the railways to which he had referred were now the property of the Transvaal and Orange River Governments. He believed they were not profitable. He understood a great deal of expense had been incurred to put them in proper order after war It should be remembered that the Committee were now dealing with Supplementary Estimates, of which he had had no previous experience, but he shared the view that Supplementary Estimates if properly presented should deal only with unforeseen expenditure. The hon. Member for East Bristol had made some remarks with which he entirely sympathised, and which certainly had great weight. The hon. Member spoke of the large amount of the Estimates which were due to excessive payments during the war, and he suggested what the remedy ought to be-a remedy which he was perfectly confident ought to be applied, and he hoped very shortly would be applied and that was to provide the proper financial staff as part of the ordinary staff of every commander in the field. Until that was done and the staff practiced in time of peace to do what it was called upon to do in time of war, there would be this excess of expenditure in every campaign that was undertaken. A vast amount of the excess of expenditure was due to the fact that there had been no preparation in utilising the forces of the Colonials, and also the Volunteers from this country. He believed the irregularity of employing hundreds of men on different engage ments, varying from day to day, had contributed largely to the expense and the confusion. He did not say that was avoidable at the time. The experiment having been made, however, they ought never to find themselves in the same difficulty again. They hoped very soon to have a scheme which would, he trusted, enable them to avoid these errors in the future. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition had found fault with him because he had been sparing in his references to expenditure, and had held out no hope that we might ever return to our normal expenditure in our War Office Estimates. If he did not think that was possible he would not be standing there; but he did not want to anticipate what he might have to say at a later date. The right hon. Gentleman was therefore doing him an injustice in his remarks on a recent occasion in declaring that he had no hope of a reduction in our expenditure. That was not a correct representation of what he had said. What he did say, and what he adhered to, was, that he was not so crazy as to suppose that we could, instantly and at this moment, alter the scale of expenditure on the Army to any serious extent. That he believed to be true, but he should not like that statement to be construed as meaning that he did not believe we could with advantage reduce the expenditure on the Army. On the contrary, he trusted he would be able to give effect to the hope which he had no distant date. An expressed at hon. Member asked for information in He had already regard to Somaliland. alluded to the matter, but he might add that the position was this. The Mullah had been driven northwards, by the energy of General Egerton and his on the troops, to a point which was edge between our protectorate and the desert. We had three positions, in fact -one on the west, one on the southwest, and one on the south, near where the Mullah now was. It was hoped that, by the co-operation of the chiefs who occupied this corner of North-East Africa, the Mullah would be placed between four forces, and that so should be able to deliver a very heavy blow at him. In this way an opportunity might be given to bring these operations to a close with some certainty that the trouble would not begin all over again. The hon. Member for Walsall had asked a question in regard to certain railways in South Africa, and a grant that had been made for replacing railway stock owing to losses in the war. we action. The Vote under discussion had That was a purely civil transsimply to do with military expenditure and the operations on the railways for the purpose of moving troops. As to the Army Pay Department they were very sensible of the reforms which reference were necessary, and he had no reason to of the Exchequer last year him. *SIR HENRY FOWLER said that with regard to the warlike operations in Somaliland, what they had to complain of was that the Government did not in the first instance tell the House of Commons what were their aims, who would conduct the operations and what would be their probable cost. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the original comparatively small Estimate for those military operations had passed the House of Commons. The House did pass those relatively small amounts very easily, but if the House had been told that they were only initial expenditure, as he might almost call it, he thought the House would require more information than had been given it as to the beginning of the war, who were going to carry it on, and what were the objectives of the Government which when achieved would bring the war to an end. They had the usual paraphrases about prestige and the obligations of this country to certain tribes who had trusted to British authority. But the House had not been given any details and did not know what those obligations amounted to, and how far the interests of this country were involved. At one time there was some doubt as to whether the war with the to the support in Cabinet of the Prime Minister. Mr. Gladstone looked on a Supplementry Estimate as almost a crime on the part of the department which presented it, and it was no easy task to get over his The Estimates were cut objections. with the intention of presenting Supdown at the beginning of the year plementary Estimates to fill up the dose of medicine to be taken in the early gaps. They were to be regarded as a weeks of the session before the Appropriation Bill could be passed. They were all agreed that the Cabinet should put down its foot with regard to those Estimates, but the tendency of all departments and the strong influence they were able to exercise, enabled them to continue this disastrous procedure which caused the House to lose control over the expenditure of the year. He was not blaming the Government just now, because no doubt war was an exceptional time; one of the Supplementary Estimates was for £6,000,000 for the Army, and there was also an Estimate for the Navy of £1,500,000 or £1,750,000 and also for the Civil Service. Look how that increased the taxation of the year. The value he attached to the debate was that it directed attention to the financial unsoundness, the tendency to extravagance, and the diminution of the control of the House of Commons, which this growing practice of Supplementary Estimates involved. said that the general discussion showed MR. LABOUCHERE! (Northampton) that military expenditure had increased, was increasing, and ought to be diminished, unless the country were to be absolutely ruined, and also that Supplementary Estimates had reached such a stage at present was being conducted by the Foreign Office, but it was no use crying over spilt milk, they would have to pay for it. Although he did not share the sanguine expectations of the Secretary of State, he hoped the war would be brought to an end as rapidly and that they had become a scandal. Those cheaply as possible. The great value The great value two propositions having been admitted it of the debate was, however, the eliciting was their duty to thoroughly examine the from all parts of the House objections divers items in the Supplementary Estito the unsatisfactory state of those mates. It was no use hopping from one Supplementary Estimates. There were to another and talking about Somaliland two Leaders in this House who did a great deal to destroy that practice. They were Mr. W. H. Smith and Mr. Gladstone. Mr. Gladstone set his face like flint against it, and in his Cabinet, too, and no such remarks could have then been made as were made by the penultimate Chancellor one moment and the. Imperial Yeomanry the next. The Estimates should be. examined item by item, and they should have an explanation of every subject as it appeared on the Paper. The first item was regimental pay, extra pay and messing allowance. It was necessary to some extent to give the allowance, but surely the Army was concerned, because it could not be paid to the Army account. MR.WHITLEY said that as he understood the matter the money when paid would be paid to the National Debt. Was there a contract to pay the money, or was there not? If there was a contract some evidence of it should exist. Was it as flimsy a contract as the bargain entered into by the ex-Colonial Secretary with reference to the £10,000,000? There was a matter of £1,250,000 due to the taxpayers of this country from the taxpayers of the Transvaal, and before it was written off they had a right to know whether it was a good or bad debt or merely a hypothetical expectation. the Government knew the cost of living in South Africa was greater than in England. They were not told the amount of the extra pay that had been given. They had been told by the ex-Minister for War that the soldiers at Wellington Barracks were absolutely in the same condition as would be the miserable Chinese who were to be brought to South Africa to work in the mines. If that were the case there would be no necessity to vote anything, as the Army would be fighting as slaves. He should like the right hon. Gentleman to explain his position on that point. He thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to do something before they voted a further farthing for the Army, since he thought the position of the soldiers in Wellington Barracks was that which would be the position of the Chinese slaves in South Africa. An explanation was required before proceeding to the the right hon. Gentleman desire an answer next item. MR. WHITLEY (Halifax) said he agreed with the hon. Gentleman that it was desirable that after a general discussion on the Vote they should look into every item and have an adequate explanation. One or two matters had arisen during the discussion which had not been answered. There was the sum which the House was asked to vote for the Imperial military railways in South Africa. They had it that it was an item which they expected would be received from Lord Milner as representing the Civil Governments in South Africa. He wanted to know whether the right hon. Gentleman would lay before the House the correspondence which had passed between himself or the Treasury and the South African Governments with regard to the liability for this amount. Did Lord Milner acknowledge the debt or did he not? MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: Certainly. MR. WHITLEY asked if the correspondence would be laid on the Table. MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT said there was no correspondence, but a bargain had been settled long ago. The account had to be written off so far as MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: Does now? I hardly understand what he means by the correspondence. There has been no correspondence; it is an acknowledged debt. MR. WHITLEY said he was glad to hear that explanation. He was glad to have extracted so strong a statement as that given to the Committee and hoped in a few days to be informed exactly how the bargain stood. It was extremely important that the Committee should see how it stood and how soon the money was to be repaid. It was only six months ago that this House voted £35,000,000 which was handed over to these Colonies which they could not yet have spent, and if this debt was acknowledged to be due why was not it paid out of the £35,000,000. This was only one illustration of the methods of finance between the House and the Transvaal Government, by which we did all the paying and the Transvaal all the receiving. There was a plea to be made on behalf of the British taxpayer. With Consols below eighty-six it was time they constituted themselves the champions of the British taxpayer. He noticed other items, such as that to the South African Constabulary, £100,000, and a similar amount with regard to the China Expedition. When these Votes were before the House last year they were told the amounts then required were the final amounts. Now they were asked for further sums and were not told whether they were final or | Charles) then understood the then Chan not. was cellor of the Exchequer to mean was that he did look forward to a considerable re*SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucester- duction in military expenditure in a year shire, Forest of Dean) said the Question or two from that date. Unless a word of his hon. friend had been clearly now said upon this point the answered by the Financial Secretary to different impression from what they Committee, might be left with a very the War Office, but the answer given was then had. As he understood, the Governdiametrically in the teeth of the account of ment did not desire to recede from what the transaction given by the late Chancellor was then said but intimated that at a of the Exchequer the right hon. Member time of shift and change in the War for Croydon. The Financial Secretary Office they could not make any such had stated that this was an absolute bar-change in the forthcoming Estimates, but gain; the then Chancellor of the Ex- that the words of the late Chancellor of chequer had referred to no such bargain, the Exchequer were still to be relied on. and said he had had the gravest doubt whether we should ever get the money back at all. MR. RITCHIE said he asserted there was no bargain at all. It was a claim made by the Treasury against these Colonies and it was contested. When he left the Treasury it was still a matter of dispute between the Colonial Office and the Treasury as to whether this money would be repaid. *SIR CHARLES DILKE said the right hon. Member's observations justified the statement he had made. The hon. Member's impression no doubt was that it was a bargain, but that impression was not true. It was clear that there was no agreement, and equally clear that the explanation of the Government would have been misleading if the matter had not been cleared up. The matter upon which he rose, however, was another matter, and was the most important question which had been mentioned this afternoon in the course of general debate. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition had referred to a promise which he he thought had been given last year by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer that there would be a reduction in military expenditure, and the present Secretary of State had used language of a definite kind at Liverpool in relation to that matter. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State had said it was not for him to reply to statements made in the previous year on the question of Army expenditure. The matter had been raised last year on several occasions and finally by a direct Question in the House, and what he (Sir VOL. CXXX. [FOURTH SERIES.] MR. GIBSON BOWLES said he just desired to make the matter of the £900,000 clear. The Financial Secretary said there was a binding contract to pay it. It was clear that the hon. Gentleman did not believe there was a binding contract, otherwise he would not have put it into a Supplementary Estimate. It was Government believed it to be a bad debt, put into this Estimate because the and they desired to write it off. If the Government believed it to be a binding contract there would be no necessity to write it off. This Vote showed the Committee for the first time a fact which nobody would have believed. It allowed a Government for the first time to withdraw a sum of £900,000 from a Vote, and devote it to a purpose for which it was not voted nor intended. The Committee voted every sum with the greatest exactitude, and thereby, as they fancied, chained up Government, but they did nothing of the kind, because the Government came one day and said we have taken £900,000 from Army funds and spent it on two railways and we have got a lot of rolling stock and other things which we thought we should have sold and got the money back, but we have not and now we ask you to sanction this. Let the Committee remember that but for this Vote every farthing of the £3,340,000 which was an Appropriation in aid would have gone to swell the old Sinking Fund. It was only this Vote which withdrew it from its proper destination, and when this amount was voted, as he supposed it would be, the result would be to deprive the Chancellor of the Exchequer of this amount which would have gone to X the diminish the Debt. He rose particulary to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he adhered to the statement that there was a binding contract by the Colonies to repay this £900,000, and if so why he put it in a Supplementary Estimate. MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT reminded the Committee that these transactions occurred before he came into office, and the information given to him was that it had been agreed, with the approval of the Treasury, to accept the round sum of £1,250,000. That, he thought, justified him in the language he had used. He now understood from the late Chancellor of the Exchequer that he was wrong, and that the acceptance of the sum did not take with it the acceptance of the Colonies, but the acceptance of the Treasury and the War Office. To that extent he was inaccurate in the language he had used. been said. There was also a claim by the War Office against the Colonies for a sum of money expended on the railways. The figures of the claim were agreed as between the Colonies and the Government, but the Colonies had raised a counterclaim for damage done to the railways while in the occupation of the troops, for wear and tear, and so forth. That counterclaim was disputed by the Government, who held that they ought to recover the £900,000. He hoped that when the Colonies were in a more prosperous condition the sum would be recovered, but nobody who knew the present position could think that the Government would be wise or indeed that it would be possible to press for immediate payment. He could not at the moment give the exact figures of the counterclaim, but the amount was very similar to that of the claim of this country. The Government did not think the claim a fair one, but the correspondMR. WHITLEY thought the hor. ence was still proceeding on the subject. Member had placed the matter once The Financial Secretary had been misWas this more in a fog. understood. agreement simply one between the Treasury and the War Office, and not between the Home Government and Lord Milner; and did the hon. Member still maintain that there was no correspondence on the subject? MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN said that unfortunately he had not been present during the whole of the discussion, having been engaged in important business in another part of the House, but he thought the Committee had received from his hon. friend the Member for Croydon a clear account of what had taken place. There were included in the Appropriation in aid sums of money to be covered by the sale of stores and animals in South Africa. They were for sales made to the Colonies, and for which the Colonies did not dispute their liability, but in the present state of their finances it was not possible to recover the amount immédiately, and therefore the Government were unable to take it into credit at the present time. MR BUCHANAN: That is another explanation. MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN said that if hon. Members would follow him they would see that his explanation was not inconsistent with what had already What he said was not that there was no correspondence, but that it was not in his possession. The Treasury supported the War Office in the claim they had made, and in their objection to the counterclaim. He apologised for his absence during part of the debate; it was not due to any want of respect to the Committee, but because of urgent duties elsewhere. SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN said the point which had troubled him was not so much the absence of certain sums from the Appropriation in aid as the fact that this item of £900,000 was to come out of the taxpayers' pocket, although the hon. Member said it was nominally only a question of account. MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN explained that the £900,000 was out-ofpocket expenditure from military funds by the War Office on these railways. Being the subject of a claim against the Colonies, it was not charged direct to the Votes of the year, but was kept in the suspense account as long as there was a prospect of its being recovered within a reasonable period. Now that the Government knew they could not get the money this year they thought the suspense account should be closed, and they |