thousand of that contingent were sent to men. That made it all the more hard to

understand the Estimate presented last year and that presented to-night. The Secretary of State for India had told the Committee that on the 31st of March there was £450,000 not paid out of the sum voted last year, and had gone on to state that if the War Office had been any other body than a public department they would have held it over and spent it next year. But the right hon. must have known that

was going on very slowly, and he must have become aware that they had not been able to spend all their money, and that there would be many of these claims outstanding, but the Estimate of the previous year was nothing like the £450,000 now stated to be wanted but an Estimate of £10,000. Would the right hon. Gentleman explain why under those circumstances last year they only asked for the paltry sum of £10,000 and now came to the House with this unaccountable sum of £150,000.

fill up the corps with which he was serving, and he assured the Committee that, speaking generally, they were a very fine lot of men indeed. They could not ride, yet they could shoot extremely well, and for pluck, dash, and determination they were quite equal to the first contingent. They could not ride, but they took to riding with extraordinary aptness. They remained in South Africa for many months, and Gentleman rendered magnificent service to the the full satisfaction of these claims Empire. The reason why there had been delay in completing these accounts was that when they came into the War Office they were in confusion. The officers who were sent out had, like himself, no familiarity with regimental accounts, and where they had with them a member of the permanent staff, like a sergeantmajor, the accounts were kept pretty straight. But when the sergeant-major was wounded, or sick, or was lost to the unit, nobody was able to take over the pay lists. In the end, therefore, the lists came into the War Office in a state of confusion, and it was inevitable that a long time should be taken to investigate them. Special officers of great ability and experience had unravelled the mystery of these accounts, and the men had been paid, he believed, in all cases. There were, however, sums of money due as gratuities to officers which had been withheld until their accounts had been properly audited. He could assure the Committee that no further item would appear on the Estimates; at any rate it would not come up in the form of a Supplementary Estimate. He believed that this sum of £150,000 was the final settlement of the whole account.

MR. BUCHANAN (Perthshire, E.) said the speech the hon. Gentleman had just delivered, so far as the Yeomanry was concerned, was satisfactory, but so far as the War Office was concerned it was very unsatisfactory. With regard to the delay in the payment of the Yeomanry the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary had said that in all probability those claims had all been paid before the 31st of March last. If that were so, then what had been outstanding since that date had been the payments due to the officers who had advanced money for the sake of their

SIR EDGAR VINCENT (Exeter) thought the Committee ought to press for something more definite as to whether the Yeomanry were or were not paid before the 31st of March. He thought the hon. Gentleman was in

error in stating that. It was absurd to suppose that the officers advanced money out of their own pockets to pay their men. This discussion had certainly destroyed whatever impression the Committee might have had before as to the soundness of the War Office finance. The Estimates were mere tokens and emblems and represented nothing like what was really required. The one thing which distinguished English finance favourably from that of other countries was the fact that the financial exercise of one year was kept entirely separate from that of the year which followed it. If the guiding idea of English finance were once lost we should lose the accuracy of the Budget.

*MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER said he did not pretend to be a pastmaster in these matters, but he really did not think the matter was so involved as hon. Members supposed. These accounts were all rendered, but were not rendered at the

time. Some were brought into the Army accounts for the financial year and the others had not been rendered in time for that account.

SIR EDGAR VINCENT: Were these sums paid out of the Treasury in the last financial year or this financial year?

*MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER said there was no doubt that they were paid, and therefore it was necessary in the coming year to cover these payments out of the military chest. The hon. Member for Perthshire had asked why it was that the whole of this account was not estimated for at the beginning of the year; that was accounted for by a circumstance with which the hon. Gentleman was well acquainted, namely, that the accounts were rendered up to the end of the year; but the surrender of the actual balance did not take place until the October or even the November following, when settlements were drawn up in the War Office for the October of the preceding year. When the Estimates were framed it was necessary that they should be framed on the knowledge possessed by the War Office. In the War Office it was believed that these claims would have come in and would have been passed before the surrender of the balances. Owing to the complication of the accounts, however, these amounts did not come in for payment at the time that the balances were surrendered. In all these cases the accounts had been passed since the surrender of the balances.

Bill for that year.

other purpose than that for which it was appropriated. But that it appeared was all moonshine. This £150,000 it appeared was paid out of the military chest, which it seemed to him was an immense suspense account to which the Government had paid money and thus defeated the Appropriation Account. The House having passed that Account thought they had the Government absolutely secure against taking money for any purpose for which no appropriation had been made by that specific act of Parliament, but the Government were in such a position that without the authority of Parliament they were able to find £900,000, pay it away, and then three or four years afterwards come to this House and ask them to sanction that proceeding. Such disclosures as this showed that our financial system was absolutely defective; that the Government had power which Parliament never thought they possessed; and that it was time for them to put their financial house in order.

MR BROMLEY DAVENPORT said he feared the hon. Gentleman was labouring under some error. The procedure was quite common. These men had to be paid week by week out of the money provided by the officers who depended on the paymaster to draw it from the military chest. It could not possibly come into the account until the end of the financial year.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES asked if this £150,000 was paid by the Treasury into the military chest in 1902-3 was it not treated as expenditure by the Treasury in that year.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn' Regis) said it appeared to him that there was some little uncertainty about this matter. It was clear now that this £150,000 had been spent in the financial year 1902-3, but had not been brought SIR EDGAR VINCENT said unless into the account of the Appropriation it was regarded as expenditure by the The Committee Treasury it was impossible to work from was now in this strange position, account to account. they were asked to transfer this amount of £150,000 which was admittedly spent in the year 1902-3 to the expenditure of the year 1903-4. With regard to the amount of £900,000 referred to on the previous evening. Last year when they passed the Appropriation Account they thought they had thereby prevented any Minister from appropriating any money to any

MR. GEORGE WHITELEY (Yorkshire, W.R., Pudsey) said it seemed to him that the whole of the financial affairs of the War Office were in a fashion muddled up. Money was laid out under the exigencies of the moment and they had to discover afterwards where it was to come from. Then they were told that in the pressure of events

drafts of Yeomanry were hurried out
to the war who could not ride. This
disclosed a state of affairs which if it
occurred in a commercial undertaking
would bring it to a state of bankruptcy
within twelve months. In the re-
organisation of the War Office the
Secretary for War and the Financial another purpose, but used for this.
Secretary should turn their attention
first of all to its financial affairs. In
all businesses the whole amendment
depended on the finance and if the
finances of the War Office were in an
orderly state then there would be a
good result, but if they were not there
would always be a muddle.

Member for Exeter, whether the item of
£150,000 was accounted for last year.

*M. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No, Sir, it was not brought into the account last year, it was paid to the soldiers but not accounted for; it was appropriated for

*MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER agreed that it was desirable that the finances of the War Office should be put upon a basis which was beyond criticism. He was glad to be able to inform the House that the subject was now being considered with a view to recasting the whole of the finance of the War Office. Hon. Members appeared to think that the explanation which he had made just previously was not very lucid, but what he said in that explanation was absolutely correct although it might not have been quite clear. He was as conscious of the fact that there must be reform in the finance of the War Office as any hon. Member could be and he was endeavouring to reduce the finance of that department | to such a condition of simplicity that all would be able to understand it as well as the hon. Member who had just spoken appeared to understand it now. With regard to sending out Yeomanry who

were

not able to ride, they had a precedent for that; one of the smartest cavalry regiments in the French Army had been made out of an infantry regiment which could not ride, but which after six weeks training became one of the crack cavalry corps in the Army. With regard to the finances of the War Office, active minds were now engaged on the problem and endeavouring to simplify and make them more lucid. That being so, he asked the Committee to say that the matter had been discussed sufficiently and that the Vote might now be taken.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE pressed for the answer to the question of the hon.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is really exceedingly unfair to the House of Commons. Here is money appropriated for one purpose which is used for entirely another purpose.

*MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: That is done every year.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes, I know, but it is time that it was brought to an end.

*MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER thought that the hon. Member was under a misapprehension. When he was at the Admiralty, it was recognised that they might transfer money within the limits of a Vote, by permission of the Treasury.

MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE said he understood the money voted last year and paid away for this purpose was about £200,000. If they voted this money again to-night how was it going to be disposed of?

MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT said this Vote was to bring into account money that had already been paid.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE on a point of order asked whether, during the current financial year, a Vote could be asked in respect of sums of money voted in the previous year and paid away. Could there be another Vote this year for the same thing?

*THE CHAIRMAN said he doubted whether this was the first time that this had occurred. It appeared to be a very common process. The money was actu ally paid out to certain individuals but was not brought into account within the financial year, and the House, in passing this Vote, would be simply sanctioning a payment which had now been finally completed. The completion of the payments and the closing of the accounts took place in the present financial year."

That

| MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford) said Mr. SECRETARY ARNOLD-FORSTER rose he rose to protest against this Vote being in his place and claimed to move, the Question be now put.' taken now.

*MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: This is

Question put, "That the Question be

not a question of a Vote. It is a ques- now put."

tion of a reduction.

MR. JOHN REDMOND: I desire to continue this discussion.

The Committee divided:-Ayes, 190;
Noes, 123. (Division List No. 10.)

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel
Allhusen, Augustus Hen. Eden
Anson, Sir William Reynell
Arnold-Foster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.
Arrol, Sir William

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John
Bailey, James (Walworth)
Bain, Colonel James Robert
Baird, John George Alexander
Balcarres, Lord

Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George
Bartley, Sir George C. T.
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.
Bignold, Arthur
Bigwood, James

Blundell, Colonel Henry
Bond, Edward

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith
Brassey, Albert

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John
Brymer, William Ernest
Burdett-Coutts, W.
Butcher, John George
Campbell, Rt. Hn.J.A(Glasgow)
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.
Cautley, Henry Strother
Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire
Cayzer, Sir Charles William
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)
Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.J.A(Worc
Charrington, Spencer
Clive, Captain Percy A.
-Coates, Edward Feetham

AYES.

Dyke, Rt.Hn.Sir William Hart
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne
Fison, Frederick William
Flannery, Sir Fortescue
Flower, Sir Ernest
Forster, Henry William
Fyler, John Arthur
Galloway, William Johnson
Gardner, Ernest
Garfit, William
Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.
Gordon, Hn.J. E(Elgin & Nairn)
Gordon, Maj. E. (T'r Hamlets)
Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)
Goulding, Edwd. Alfred
Greene, Sir E.W(B'rySEdm'nds
Greville, Hon. Ronald
Hain, Edward

Hall, Edward Marshall
Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.
Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry
Harris, F. Leverton(Tynemouth
Haslett, Sir James Horner
Hay, Hon. Claude George
Heath, A. Howard (Hanley)
Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.
Heaton, John Henniker
Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.
Hogg, Lindsay

Hope, J.F(Sheffield, Brightside)
Houston, Robert Paterson
Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)
Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil
Hudson, George Bickersteth
Hunt, Rowland

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)
Coghill, Douglas Harry
Cohen, Benjamin Louis
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole
Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas
Cripps, Charles Alfred
Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile
Cubitt, Hon. Henry
Dalkeith, Earl of
Dalrmyple, Sir Charles
Davenport, William Bromley
Denny, Colonel
Dickson, Charles Scott
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph
Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.
Doulgas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers
Doxford, Sir William Theodore
Duke, Henry Edward
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop
Kerr, John
Keswick, William
Kimber, Henry
Knowles, Sir Lees
Laurie, Lieut.-General
Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)
Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth)
Lawson, Jn. G. (Yorks., N. R.)
Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)
Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)
Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.
Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.
Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.)
Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)
Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)
Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

| Maconochie, A. W.
M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)
M'Calmont, Colonel James
M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)
Malcolm, Ian

Martin, Richard Biddulph
Maxwell, W.J.H.(Dumfriessh.)
Milner, Rt. Hn.Sir Frederick G.
Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.
Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)
Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)
Morrell, George Herbert
Morrison, James Archibald
Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer
Mount, William Arthur
Muntz, Sir Philip A.
Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)
Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Myers, William Henry
O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)
Parkes, Ebenezer

Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington
Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley
Percy, Earl

Plummer, Walter R.
Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Pretyman, Ernest George
Pym, C. Guy
Ratcliff, R. F.

Reid, James (Greenock)
Remnant, James Farquharson
Richards, Henry Charles
Renwick, George
Ridley, Hn. M.W.(Stalybridge)
Ridley, S. Forde(Bethnal Green
Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter
Royds, Clement Molyneux
Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford
Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)
Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Simeon, Sir Barrington
Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Smith, H.C(North'mb. Tyneside
Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)
Spear, John Ward
Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John | O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Question put accordingly, "That Item, | Africa), be reduced by £100."

Vote 1, Sub-head F (C), Pay, etc., of the The Committee divided:-Ayes, 122: Corps of Imperial Yeomanry (South Noes, 190. (Division List No. 11.)