accordingly asked the House for the money. They were not writing the amount off as a bad debt; that would be a very different operation; he still hoped to recover the money, which when paid would go to the Sinking Fund. SIR JOHN GORST (Cambridge University) thought the transaction was now perfectly clear. The £900,000 had been spent out of war funds, without the authority of Parliament, for the benefit of the Colonies, and because there was no Appropriation and no Parliamentary sanction the expenditure was carried to a suspense account. The Government now found that the money would not be paid by the Colonies, and at the eleventh hour they came to the Committee of Supply to vote the money which had been illegitimately spert out of war funds for colonial purposes. MR. BRODRICK said there was really no foundation for the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman. This money had been expended, not for colonial purposes, but for the use of the Army: it was spent by the engineers solely for the purpose of transporting the troops. The contention of the Government was that the money having been expended and the lines having benefited to the extent of £900,000 that sum ought to be reimbursed by the Colonies on taking over the railways. MR. RUNCIMAN (Dewsbury) thought it was clear from the explanations that had been made that this £900,000 must be treated as a bad debt. He doubted whether the action of the Government in placing the sum on the Supplementary Estimates had improved their chance of ultimately recovering the money, as the Colonies when pressed would immediately say, "Oh, you have already received the money from the British taxpayer; we are in rather a bad way, and under the circumstances we think we are justified in asking that the matter should be allowed to lie where it is." The incident would simply add to the uneasiness felt both inside and outside the House with regard to the way in which Supplementary Estimates were accumulating. The enormously heavy expenditure of the services had a great deal to do with the distress in all our home trades. £30,000,000 of extra expenditure used in unproductive works must naturally cripple our industries, not only in the amount of capital available, but in the spendable capital for the home markets, which were the best customers for our manufactures. He wanted to know how far this kind of thing was to go, and he was curious to know how the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was to be a drag on the wheel. The Chancellor had certainly a very uncomfortable prospect before him so far as the Budget was concerned, for there never was a time in the history of the country when it was necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to put on the brake more heavily than at present. They had not only to foresee a very heavy expenditure, but a considerable amount of rebellion among the British taxpayers at the heavy total expenditure of the year. Some of the items were entirely unexplained, and as many of them had not been sorted out in the financial archives of the Treasury and War Office, there siderable dissatisfaction among those who would be asked to keep up the He constandard of the Navy. sidered that these Votes were not only bad from a financial point of view, but they injured the prospects of the First Lord of the Admiralty when he came down for a large Vote in the course of the next few weeks, and if it were only for the sake of the Navy he should join heartily against this proposed increased expenditure. would be con MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.) said there was another item about which they ought to hear something more. He gathered that the Government were hopeful of cutting off the Mullah in the north-eastern portion of the province, but they ought to be told what was the policy of the Government. Did they intend to pursue him into the desert beyond if he escaped? They knew how very elusive his forces were, and the escape of part of his force might enable him to reappear again in another part of the country. They wanted to know whether the Government intended to try and make some sort of peace, or would they go on pursuing the Mullah into the desert? The sum of £1,600,000 was now asked for, and they had been told in reply to a Question that they were spending money upon this expedition at the rate of £115,000 per month. That would mean another £1,500,000 if it continued for another year. Before they voted this sum they were entitled to have a much fuller statement, or at least they were entitled to have another opportunity of discussing this practice, which had become a very serious drain upon their expenditure. He hoped a proper explanation would be given. *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER said he had already spoken twice with regard to Somaliland. He was not at all sanguine about a campaign of this sort. The right hon. Gentleman had asked most fairly what was the policy of the Government in regard to Somaliland. He did not think it was necessary to go through the whole history of the expedition from its initiation. There was very little more to say about the incidents of this campaign, for they were tedious, difficult, and prolonged. One incident was very much like another, except that the earlier attempts were marked by failure and the more recent ones had been marked by considerable success. He could tell the Committee the policy of the Government in a word. In the first place, it was on no account to add to our responsibilities or to increase our territories. In the second place, it was to continue the campaign until they had made it reasonably probable that further raids upon our territory would not occur. He had good reason for believing that they were nearer the realisation of that hope than they had been for some time past. It was a fact that the position was now, from the military point of view, less unfavourable than it had been in the past. It had been stated that they had driven the Mullah into the northern portion of the protectorate. There was a British force in his rear, and on the east side there was another force cooperating. The routes taken by the troops were governed to a large extent by the water supply, and therefore the procedure was not so absurd as some hon. Members appeared to think. The next few weeks they hoped would produce developments which, while they might not be decisive, would throw a good deal of light upon the policy they could adopt in the future. The Mullah had retreated across the waterless desert with great loss to his troops, and he was now located in a district from which there were but limited means of escape. If the Mullah were to escape with an unbroken force and a reasonable probability that he would recommence his raids, the policy of the Government would again be the same as that of any other Government under similar circumstances, for they would have to continue those military operations which they had been compelled to undertake and which the Government regretted as much as any hon. Gentleman opposite. he thought he should be simply wastThere was nothing more to be said, and ing the time of the Committee if he elaborated at any great length the past history of this campaign. The present was satisfactory, the future was unknown, but the policy of the Government was perfectly clear. MR. BUCHANAN said these Estiincluded the pay of the mates Colonial Contingents, and this was one of the most important questions which had been discussed that afternoon. A large number of those items might inserted in the general Estimates of the perfectly easily have been foreseen and year. He did not think there was a which afforded a stronger example of single case amongst the many items this want of prudence and knowledge on the part of the War Office than this item of £800,000 for Colonial Contingents. Here in the last month of the financial year was a proposal for contingents whose services were rendered a year and a half ago, and during that time there had been ample opportunity, if not for definite settlement, at least to enable the War Office to have done something to meet these demands. The total amount rendered under Estimates for this item was only £5,000. The War Office was either so blind or in such a hurry or actuated by a desire to make its figures as low as possible that they grossly underestimated this item. One speaker had said that large sums had been asked for in previous years and there was a balance over, and the conclusion to be drawn from that was that the claims were not satisfied and they ought to have inserted a sum in the Estimates. They ought to have some more satisfactory explanation from the representatives of the War Office on this subject. By not putting down adequate sum in the general Estimates the figures had been made fallacious. He begged to move a reduction of this item by £10,000. an Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item, Vote 1, Sub-head F (B), Pay, etc. of Colonial Contigents (South Africa), be reduced by £10,000."(M. Buchanan.) MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL (Oldham) said the point on which the Com made. He must press for a better explanation than had yet been given on this point. *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER said he had already explained that in the Votes of 1902-3 there was a sum of £400,000 available for the purpose. Naturally, it that this sum would come in, so as to was expected up to the last moment enable it to be used for some portion of this Estimate. He did not think that any hon. Member would suppose that the £5,000 included in last year's Estimate was seriously intended by the War Office officials or by the Secretary of State to indicate exactly what would have to be be put in one sentence. The Estimate paid. He was sorry there had been delay last year was only £5,000, and the in the preparation and auditing of the amount in the Supplementary Estimate accounts, but he was not responsible for was £800,000. It did not seem that that could be a mistake. Consequently there seemed to be a deliberate underestimate of what the total amount under this head would be. Perhaps it was wrong to impute motives before hearing the explanation, but he thought they were entitled to an explanation. mittee were entitled to information could MR. COURTENAY WARNER (Staffordshire, Lichfield) said they did not suspect the Treasury of trying to deceive the House of Commons, but the War Office was quite capable of doing this to make things more comfortable with the Treasury. What they objected to was the taking of these sums on the Supplementary Estimates instead of on the ordinary Estimates. It seemed to have been supposed that a surplus of £400,000 from the preceding year could be utilised in order to reduce the sum to a very much smaller amount, but even if that had been the case there would still have been a very large difference between £500,000 and £800,000. That did not explain the whole thing. This was only one of a series of mistakes that had been it. MR. GIBSON BOWLES said it appeared from what the right hon. Gentleman had just said that he forgot the character of the Vote. The £5,000 was for arrears of pay. It was indicated, therefore, that this would end the job. Having cheerfully voted £5,000 to end the whole of the claims of the Colonial Contingents the Committee were this year confronted with a demand for an extra £800,000. Surely no story out of "Alice in Wonderland" was more curious than this of the £5,000 Estimate which had grown to £800,000. He suggested that it was a step towards intercepting £3,000,000 which would otherwise go to the extinction of the National Debt. No Chancellor of the Exchequer and no Financial Secretary could ever template without the greatest horror the prospect of anything going to the extinc⚫ tion of the National Debt. con MR. BRODRICK said that he was not responsible for the appearance of this sum in its present form. As regarded half the item Parliament was made aware that it would have to be provided, but the adjustment was not concluded at the With close of the last financial year. regard to a considerable portion of the remainder very large sums had been under dispute with the Australian colonies as to the precise terms on which their contingents had to be paid, and as to the precise, liability of the Imperial Government. This caused delay in the friend and vote for this reduction. He adjustment of the accounts. He could only regretted that it was not for the assure the Committee that there was larger sum. nothing in the nature of concealment in this matter as had been suggested. He fully admitted that there was great objection, if it could be avoided, to arrears being brought forward in this way, but in this case, with regard to three-fourths of the money, it would have been absolutely impossible for the House of Commons to have been made aware of it earlier. MR. RUNCIMAN said he wished to ask whoever was responsible for this Vote, how many men the sum represented. If it represented 10,000 men that meant that it was pay for 320 days. Then, when did the men actually receive the money in the year 1903-4, or in the previous year, or had they got it yet? He understood that there were still some creditors of the War Office amongst the men. When hon. Members saw the £5,000 on the Estimates last year, they understood that that was to clear the up accounts; and this £800,000, which seemed an absolutely new payment, required a much fuller explanation than had been given. *SIR EDGAR VINCENT said the Committee ought to be informed which of these items were token Votes and which were not. Were they to be told next year that, although they had voted £2,700,000, that was merely an intimation that there was a further sum to pay, and had no reference whatever to the real amount? They must know whether these sums were final or not. MR. LABOUCHERE said he was entirely at a loss to understand how the money was spent. Somebody in the House was responsible for the money that was expended, but one Gentleman after another had got up on the Treasury Bench to say that he was not responsible. An ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer also had said that he was not responsible. Who, then, in the name of wonder was responsible for the money? Ministers and ex-Ministers had been rigging the pea about, and now it is impossible to tell under which thimble it was. The Australian Governments scouted it, and the men brought an action against them for the payment of their 5s. a day which was paid. Was this payment only an advance by the Colonies, or did these men get 5s. a day from the Colonies and 5s. from the War Office? He wanted to know what the transaction was from the beginning. Last year Parliament was told that these arrears of pay were £5,000, while this year a modest little sum of £800,000 had been sprung upon them; and yet they were informed that no one was responsible. The whole thing from beginning to end was an absurdity, and showed how thoroughly badly the War Office accounts were kept. He did not see on the Treasury Bench the Chancellor colonial troops left at a particular period of the Exchequer, who had disappeared.sented by the vote of £800,000. of the year, or the number of men repreWere they to take it tacitly that the right hon. Gentleman held he was not responsible by not speaking? The Committee ought to put a stop at once to this kind of procedure, and register some kind of protest. The country was being fooled, and the House of Commons ought to look more closely into these matters when they saw the wrong that had been done. Therefore, for his part, he would cheerfully go into the Lobby with his hon. *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER said that his hon. friend the Member for Exeter would have an opportunity of judging, when he saw the Estimates which would be shortly introduced. These items represented actual payments, and so far as his knowledge went they were final the Estimates the sums necessary to cover payments. If not, he should put into the costs. He could not tell the hon. Member for Dewsbury off-hand how many MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL asked when the men were paid. *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER said he supposed they were paid from the beginning of the war. The accounts for them were not rendered by the Colonial Governments till quite recently. There had been two separate payments to these troops, one by the Colonial Governments *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: That sum and the other by our own Government was necessary. on the accounts supplied by the Colonial Governments, and checked by the War Office. MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL said they were entitled to ask the late Secretary for War what were the reasons which induced him to fix £5,000 last year as being the proper amount that would be required. The explanation might probably be that so low a sum was fixed because it would be much easier to get it through the Committee, and thus take away the control of the House of Commons. SIR EDWARD GREY (Northumber land, Berwick) said he wished to know what happened to the £400,000 which was voted, but was not spent. Was it surrendered to the Treasury, and diverted afterwards to some other purpose? MR. BRODRICK said the right hon. Baronet was perfectly justified in asking the Question. The £400,000 was not spent, and was surrendered to the Exchequer in consequence. The £5,000 was put in the Estimates because he was assured that the sum at that time in course of payment, including the £400,000 which was not spent, would sufficiently cover the charges to be met. The sum the Committee were now dealing with was part of the adjustment of a sum of £10,000,000. He assured the Committee that his one wish in presenting the Estimates had been to put in all charges whatsoever, and to clear off the whole business. He had put every possible pressure on the officials accordingly, but it had been found impossible to get all the items brought into account before the Estimates were prepared. MR. LLOYD-GEORGE said he was fully aware of that. It was then stated that only an Estimate of £5,000 would be required, but now a Supplementary Estimate for £800,000 was brought forward. If accounts were kept in such an absurd fashion in any counting-house in the Kingdom or by any county council somebody would have to go. He ventured on a previous occasion to call attention to the manner in which these Appropriations-in-aid were brought forward. That was the way in which the expenditure was increasing year by year. No one made an estimate of what was happening. The Financial Secretary to the War Office said in his explanation that after all they could not be absolutely precise in their estimates. He, himself, did not expect anything unreasonable and if it was only a question of £5,000 or £10,000 the hon. Gentleman's explanation would be adequate, but when only £5,000 was asked for and the Vote was increased to £800,000 it was rather trifling with the House of Commons to make such an explanation. How much more of it would the House of Commons stand? It seemed to him that the terrors of dissolution paralysed the power of criticism of hon. Gentlemen opposite. It was perfectly certain that in their own business they would not allow a clerk who made such a scandalous error and who repeated it to enter their office again. MR BRODRICK said it was only an error of 4 per cent. MR. LLOYD-GEORGE said it was an error of 1,600 per cent. MR. BRODRICK said that as the MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Colonies paid £6,000,000 he was over Boroughs) said he hardly knew whether estimating it when he said the error was the mistakes made or the explanations 4 per cent. It was really only about 25 given of them were the more extraordin- per cent. ary. According to the answer given to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwick there was a surplus of £400,000 from last year, and the explanation was that that sum was surrendered to the Exchequer because it was not considered necessary. MR. LLOYD-GEORGE said the war was over ten months before the right hon. Gentleman made his statement last year. He tabled his account in March and whatever happened after that it was trifling in amount. It seemed to him |