said he desired to draw attention to the extravagant expenditure which had taken place in connection with both the sea transport as regarded horses and the entire management of the Remount Department.

, interrupting, said he wished to call attention to a matter which would be excluded by the motion of the hon. and gallant Member for West Newington. He wished to impress upon the Secretary for War the importance of not wasting money in moving Militia about the country. The South Staffordshire Militia were moved down to the neighbourhood of Portsmouth for a week or two before being sent to South Africa; it would surely have been better to keep them in their quarters at Lichfield. He wished to have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that he would not continue the policy of moving Militia battalions about more than is absolutely necessary.

said there was one feature in this enormous amount which he really thought was very significant. There were several headings down, but there was no single item with respect to which any sum was named. He believed that it was unprecedented in the history of Estimates that a Vote of this nature, amounting to £9,550,000, should be asked for in a lump sum without the smallest detail being given. There were no fewer than seven heads to this Vote, every one of which was entitled to have its amount set down. In the case of sub-head A the proper method had been pursued, for there were four sub-heads, each one of which had its amount set out. He was entirely unable to see why under Sub-head C £9,550,000 should be asked for without a single item being set forth, the lump sum only being given. This system of setting down lump sums was especially dangerous in Army and Navy Estimates, because in those Estimates if there was more taken than was needed on one item it could be taken and used for another purpose. That was not the case with the Civil Service Estimates, nor with the Estimates of the Revenue Department. If the Government desired to throw dust into the eyes of the people and conceal from the country the particular way in which they wanted to spend the money, they might put down under the head of "sea transports" an enormous sum larger than they knew they would be able to spend, and in the course of the year they could apply part of that money to some other item. There was another danger. He observed that the War Office proposed in future that in some respects the unexpended balances should be carried forward. That exposed them to a number of new dangers. If they voted this £9,550,000 without detail, the War Office would have the power to devote part of this money to other matters, such as the payment of men and officers—a policy which might be open to discussion. Whether this abuse would be permitted to continue was a matter for future consideration. He was simply pointing out the very serious financial considerations and dangers involved in this system—which to him appeared to be an abuse—of asking the House to vote £9,550,000 without giving the smallest detail, although the different heads were there. There was one other matter which had been raised by the hon. Member opposite. When the Government in a time of war put down £10,600,000 for sea transport and horses, and in the following year they asked the House for a sum which was almost equal to the previous year, undoubtedly there were grounds for the hon. Member for East Mayo's contention that, in the opinion of the Government, the war expenditure was going to continue for another year. If that was the opinion of the Government he was rather inclined to think that they were correct. If this Vote was to be taken as an indication that the war expenditure was going to be continued for another year at the same rate it was a very serious matter. He trusted that the Secretary for War would give some explanation, and a sufficient one, for the absence of all detail in this large Vote, and that he would be able to tell the House that the probability of the war continuing this year was not, in his opinion, as 9½ to 10½, the sum asked for last year being £10,600,000, while the amount asked for this year was £9,550,000.

said he desired to ask the Secretary for War a question with regard to the transport of the Yeomanry last year, in which the screw steamer, "Lusitania," was engaged. The transport arrangements were carried out by the Yeomanry Committee, and they were not, therefore, inspected by the Transport Department of the Admiralty. The result was that when the transports were taken over by the War Office, in order to take the Yeomanry to South Africa, it was found that the "Lusitania" was entirely unfit to carry troops. The result was that Lord Lansdowne had to pay £5,000, being one month's hire of the transport, in order to get out of the difficulty. He wanted an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that laches of that kind would not be committed again, because they had been called upon to pay £5,000 for absolutely no benefit whatever.

called the attention of the Secretary of State for War to the case of a steamship which had been used for the purpose of forming a hospital for the Boers, and for which a sum of £1,000 a month had been paid. His information was that the Boers stationed on the hospital ship were taken down from a comparatively healthy up-country station and put down at Colombo, the mean temperature of which was 83° and on occasions rose to such a pitch that the medical officer in attendance had to recommend the ship to be sent to sea for cruises of six or eight hours at a time in order to save the lives of the patients. But it was infinitely worse from the point of view of economy, because close to the very stations from which the patients were brought were hill stations where English and Europeans lived in perfect health and comfort, and where the prisoners could have been put without going to the great cost of this absurd hospital ship. If the Secretary of State was not aware of the details of this transaction, he hoped he would look into the matter, and take such cognisance of it that such a state of things, which he could not describe as anything short of scandalous, should not be allowed to occur again.

pointed out to the hon. Member for King's Lynn that it might be that the Government were taking this large sum of money in order to bring back the troops. Any hon. Member who desired to do his duty to his conscience and the country on such Votes as this had a good deal of difficulty to contend with. He regarded the money already spent as money which they were bound to provide, although he was opposed to spending any more money upon this war. They ought not to vote any further supplies so long as the Government told them that they intended to carry on this war until the Boers surrendered, and so long as they told them that they would not enter into negotiations with the Boers to try and discover under what conditions the Boers were prepared to enter the area of the British Empire. He wished the Secretary of State would tell them exactly how much of this money had been spent, how much it was intended to spend, and how much of it was for the bringing back and the sending out of troops. He would be ready to vote money for bringing the men back, but not for sending them out. They heard last year that the war was over, and a number of ships were sent to the Cape to bring back the soldiers. He wished to know what the Government were doing in regard to those ships. Were they still paying for them, and were the ships still waiting for the precise moment when the war would be over? That was too monstrous to believe. Those ships were sent out—an electioneering dodge—with great parade to bring the troops back, and to convey the idea to the country that the war was over in the true sense of the word, and from that moment to the present time those ships were being kept there, and the country had to pay for them. And still the Government would not enter into any reasonable negotiations with the Boers. He was sure that the Secretary of State for War did not wish them to vote against his views under a misapprehension of the figures, and therefore he should tell the House what he was paying for demurrage at the present moment, and what amount he had included in the present Vote for further demurrage. How long was this state of things going to last? If the Government were so stiff-necked as to refuse to enter into reasonable negotiations, the war might last a year. Let the House be told how much of the money was to be spent in sending out more troops to South Africa. He did not want any more troops sent out until they had entered into negotiations, or until they had found that negotiations had failed. On account of the hugger-mugger manner in which this Vote was presented it was perfectly impossible for anyone to vote with a full knowledge of what he was doing. Under the present system the right hon. Gentleman might take the money voted for one purpose and devote it to another purpose. The War Office claimed the right to spend this money not only upon the particular item in the Vote, but upon any other item. So long as the Estimates were presented in that state, and so long as the Government claimed this right to ask for money for one object and spend it for another the granting of Votes would be a perfect farce.

said that the Government in the end would be bound to furnish the details of the enormous amount of money which had been spent upon remounts. He ventured to say that when such information had been furnished it would be found that the money spent upon this item was one of the most disgraceful transactions, and an expenditure which ought not to have taken place. He hoped that a court of inquiry would be the outcome of the deplorable mismanagement which had taken place in South Africa. He should support the motion of his hon. friend because he felt that the transports were not wanted, and because there had been much delay in the South African ports.

said that when certain transports were being sent out to convey horses to South Africa it was found that the fittings of certain vessels did not comply exactly with the Government regulations, and they were taken out, and fittings complying with the Government regulations were placed in their stead. In one particular case the Government fittings were not put in in a sufficiently substantial manner, and when the vessel got into a rough sea those fittings gave way and a large number of horses were very seriously injured. [An HON. MEMBER: One hundred and fifty.] A very large number of those horses had to be thrown overboard, and the vessel returned to Liverpool to be repaired. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether a full inquiry had been made into the circumstances of that particular case. The matter had been mentioned in the House more than once. He wished to know, first of all, why the ordinary fittings were taken out of the vessel at a moment when time was of the greatest importance? Why were the ordinary fittings replaced by Government fittings, and why were those Government fittings not of a sufficiently substantial character to stand the stress of weather? He agreed with the hon. Member for King's Lynn that the Government had not treated the House fairly in this matter. He would go further, and say that during the last five or six years, although there had in that period been many instances in which the Government had treated the House of Commons with contempt, he believed there was no case in which the Government had treated the House with more contempt than in this particular instance. They were discussing now a Vote of £9,550,000. If they examined the Estimates for other Departments they would find the Votes properly classified under sub-heads and letters, and they would also find the amounts taken for the different items definitely stated. In this particular case they were asked to vote £9,550,000 with their eyes absolutely shut. The House of Commons, upon this particular Vote, ought to make a definite and distinct protest. He thought the time had now arrived when they should know the freights charged for the transports. He was not alluding to any transactions which had taken place within the last few weeks or months, for the Government might hold the opinion that in the interests of the public service it would not be right to give that information to the House. It was, however, a long time since these transactions were commenced, and with regard to the earlier stages of them, at all events, the time had long ago arrived when the House of Commons ought to be placed in posses- sion of the facts. He would, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentleman to give them some information upon that point, and more particularly as to the case of the particular vessel to which he had drawn attention.

The hon. Member who has just sat down says the Committee are being asked to vote £9,550,000 on this particular item with their eyes shut. The House of Commons has before it eloquent testimony to the great service which has been performed in conveying troops to South Africa in the various publications issued at different times in connection with the war in South Africa. The Government have embarked for South Africa and conveyed there over 300,000 men, without the loss of a single life, and over 260,000 animals in the course of the last eighteen months, an achievement to which I do not think the history of any other country can furnish a parallel. I think that no more eloquent testimony to the way this work has been conducted by the department of the Admiralty specially concerned can be found than the fact that the whole House of Commons has only brought forward some two or three instances upon which there is any question whatever as to the manner in which the work has been carried out. The hon. Member opposite alluded to the fittings of a particular ship, but my noble friend, who has seen the vessel himself, is more competent than I am to deal with the question. I may say that the vessel met with an exceptional gale, in which a number of partitions were destroyed. In the rolling of the ship a great water tank became unshipped and did considerable damage. There is now, of course, greater experience to guide the authorities. Taking the general question of transports from first to last, I think it is wonderful that there are so few cases in which accidents have occurred. The hon. Member for Walsall called attention to the "Lusitania." That vessel was engaged before my own time by the Yeomanry Committee, who, to that extent, acted as private individuals. The Yeomanry Committee did most excellent work in equipping the large body of Yeomanry who first went out and in helping to equip the body of Yeomanry more recently sent out. I think it is an interesting commentary on the excellent service provided by the Government that the only case the right hon. Gentleman had to bring forward was one of which a body other than the Government had the equipping of the ship. Various questions were put to me by my hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn. First of all, he complains that, whereas under Item A we have given all the details under the various headings, we have not done so in the case of Item C. That information can be very easily obtained by anybody who has got the Estimates in his hands. Item A is for ordinary and smaller amounts and is only £714,000, and includes a sum of £414,000 which is on the normal Estimates, with regard to which the Government are able to give chapter and verse. The remainder alone is on the Estimates for war services which are less easy to calculate. Item C involves, as the hon. Member for East Mayo has pointed out, the whole question of the duration of the war. With regard to the particular transports which have been engaged, it is absolutely impossible to apportion the cost under the various heads, and we cannot make even an approximate estimate. I was not surprised to find my hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn hauling us over the coals for want of detail in this respect. In all matters connected with the Admiralty my hon. friend is a recognised corsair, and carries on piratical practices without the slightest regard to the ordinary rules. He challenges all sorts of details, and brings up subjects which other hon. Members of the House are hardly prepared to discuss, and he insists upon us giving the most minute details in the Estimates. When my hon. friend proceeded to follow in the wake of the hon. Member for East Mayo, and to declare that the size of this Vote indicated the probability that the Government intended or expected that the war would be continued up to the 31st of next March on the same scale as it has been continued up to the present moment, I thought for the moment that his mind was so set on financial purity that he had forgotten what was surely the obvious deduction to be made from this Vote. The deduction from the Vote is that, having spent last year £10,000,000 in taking out a large number of troops, we have had naturally to provide this year a large sum in view of the possibility—which I hope is more than a possibility—the probability of having to bring home a large number of troops. He, on the other hand, took the view that it was our intention to send out another 200,000 men and to land the country in a bill of £9,500,000, and this particular item astonishes him. What we have done is this. We have taken money to be used in completing the payments for ships already on hire. I have been asked for more details with regard to that. The Admiralty carry on this business for us, and I can only tell the House, not of individual cases, but of what is a typical case of the average we are paying. A typical infantry transport, with room for 1,250 men, costs £5,000 per month for hire, and a horse transport for 400 horses costs about the same, coaling and messing forming an additional public charge in both cases. We have at present engaged something like forty-five transports, the greater number of which are employed on passages either one way or the other. We have at home five transports preparing, nine travelling outwards, and eleven travelling homewards. The others are either hospital ships, or employed at the Cape, or engaged in coast voyages, or awaiting contingencies that may arise at the Cape. I am quite sure that, whether this is looked at from the point of view of the health of the soldiers who have to be removed from South Africa, or whether it is looked at from the point of view of the transport of prisoners, or from the point of view of as rapidly as possible delivering at the seat of war those reinforcements which the Government intend to send when they are necessary, it is a wise, a good, and indeed a humane expenditure that we should be fairly and properly provided in the matter of transports. I do not think that the taking up of ships which are not well fitted up for the work is a wise thing for us to embark upon at this period of the war, when we have 250,000 men engaged in South Africa. As regards the total amount of £9,550,000—and I do not think that, compared with the expenditure last year, it can be regarded as excessive—we have to bring home at some time or another all the troops we have sent out. There is no doubt that the transport to and from has been admirably carried out, and it must be continued at its present level until there is some relaxation of the great demands upon us in South Africa. I think I have answered so far as I can all the points that have been put to me.

asked the right hon. Gentleman to give an answer in regard to the hospital ship at Ceylon.

I am not cognisant of what actually occurred in that matter, but I know that the health of the prisoners at Ceylon has, on the whole, been admirably maintained.

said he was amazed at the levity with which the right hon. Gentleman had answered the questions addressed to him by Members on both sides of the House. He was a member of the Public Accounts Committee, and was only too well acquainted with the laches of the War Office to allow a Vote of £9,550,000 to pass without notice; but whether this question came from himself, who might be open to the objection of being too great a purist in finance, or from another, there had been a most reasonable request made for some details of the £9,550,000. It was only during the last two years that these details had been omitted. Formerly each of these items had the proper amount put opposite to it. Why should the right hon. Gentleman, instead of offering some details, put them off with such statements as that there was eloquent testimony in the way the troops had been sent to Africa of the way the transport had been managed, and with such allegations as that he was a corsair? When the whole of the proceedings of the Admiralty in this matter were brought before the House they would be able to see who was the corsair, or rather who was the pirate. If the Committee did not get an answer giving the details asked for, he would vote for the Amendment. He was not prepared to see the House treated with contempt. It was useless to say that the Government did not know the details. The total of £9,550,000 could only have been arrived at by adding up the different items. The right hon. Gentleman was in possession of every one of the figures which had been asked for. [Mr. BRODRICK shook his head.] If he continued to shake his head, how did he get the total? Did somebody on this side of the House go to him and say, "Put down £9,500,000, and in order to make it exact add another £50,000 to it"? The Committee had an absolute right to all the items. It was an outrage—well, not an outrage, but it was unusual for a Minister to make so light and so contemptuous a reply.

said the reply of the Secretary of State for War had given increased cause for suspicion in this matter. There were two classes of transports—those which were hired right out for the time being, and the larger class which were simply taken for one or two voyages as the case might be. In a number of cases these transports were paying for weeks or months hundreds of pounds of demurrage at the ports. This showed a want of calculation and foresight on the part of the Government, and it was only natural that details of these matters should be asked.

asked for information as to the price of bringing back horses from South Africa. He understood that a transport carrying 400 horses cost £5,000 per month, which was equivalent to £12 per horse per month. If anything was required in South Africa it was horses, and it seemed to him an absurd proposal to bring back horses which would be useful in South Africa, and which would be more marketable there than here. He suggested that the Government should take into consideration the importance of leaving the horses in South Africa, and purchasing horses here for the use of the troops when they returned.

said the question "How much has been spent in demurrage?" was very simple. Would the right hon. Gentleman inform the Committee what the amount was? He had had an opportunity of assuring the Committee that the miscalculation as to the termination of the war did not cost us much money. What he had told the Committee was an effort to evade the real issue, which was that at this moment there were fourteen ships under demurrage. The major part of the money spent on demurrage was money wasted. It was expenditure which might have been avoided by more careful calculation as to when the war would be over, and the Committee had a right to know how much the miscalculation had cost the nation.

said he absolutely disagreed with what had been said by the hon. Member for North Monmouth. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman could tell them how many of these ships were at South African ports, but they were there in anticipation of the bringing home of the troops, which would be done at the very first day they could be returned. He was quite sure that the money laid out for the purpose of securing ships for that purpose was economically and humanely spent. He was a member of the Public Accounts Committee, and he could not call to mind a single instance in connection with these tremendous outlays where any charge could have been brought against the War Office of being lavish, careless, or improvident in the expenditure of money. But his right hon. friend gave an explanation which he was glad to hear, that this expenditure was for the transport of troops to and from South Africa. His right hon. friend—and, indeed, any responsible Minister—would have been imprudent, instead of being most cautious as the right hon. Gentleman had been, had he ventured to allocate the proportion of expenditure that was to be incurred for sending the troops out to South Africa and that for bringing them home. He would have given ground for a repetition of those constant reproaches made, sometimes with reason, against the Government about the expectations which they held out that the war was not going to last so long as it unfortunately had done. His right hon. friend had given to the Committee an explanation as clear and satisfactory and as detailed as it was possible or wise for him to do.

said that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down might be a great authority on finance, but he would pardon him for saying that he had not met the point raised. The contention of the hon. Member for King's Lynn was, to his mind, unanswerable, and no attempt had been made to answer it. How was this Estimate of £9,550,000 arrived at? Was it put down at random, without any attempt to estimate the items which went to make up the total? He maintained that the Government were condemned by their own Paper, which put down no fewer than seven separate items, making up a total but fixing no amount for each Estimate. Did the War Office, in making this enormous demand to be presented to the Committee, calculate the separate items at all? If they did not, they were attempting most shamefully to deceive the Committee. And if they did calculate the seven separate items, why should they not be communicated to the Committee? It was a curious coincidence that all the dead walls in London were to-day placarded with bills announcing the Report of the War Office Committee. The Committee reported that there was "want of business method," "and that so great was the confusion in the War Office that it was impossible to bring home responsibility to any individual." They had a very good illustration of that in the present case; and when the hon. Member for Kings Lynn—who, whatever his political views might be, was distinguished in the House for his knowledge of its rules—brought up this point, he was called a corsair, and accused of making incursions on the War Office and Admiralty without any regard to principle or rule. But it was not an answer to the main question as put by the hon. Gentleman to make an absurd and unsuited attack upon him. What they demanded to know was how this Estimate was made up. Was it an honest Paper under these seven sub-heads, and, if so, why were they not told the amount of the Estimate on each of the seven sub-heads? What was the objection to letting the Committee know that? The hon. Member did not make the smallest effort to state any objection, or to insinuate that any public interest was at stake in giving to the Committee, the country, or even to the enemy the cost of the transports and other important details which it was important for the Committee and the country to know. They wanted to know how many transports were permanently employed, and how many on casual hire. When the right hon. Gentleman was asked to give some detailed information as to why such a large sum was demanded he gave two contradictory reasons. At the beginning of his speech the right hon. Gentleman said that the reason why so large a sum as 10½ millions was asked for was to send 250,000 troops to South Africa, with remounts, armaments, etc.; and that now it would take 9½ millions to bring them home again. There was a great deal of doubt as to whether they would be ever brought home again, considering that more than half of the whole cost of transport was for horses. Most of the horses were dead and buried in South Africa, and the remainder ought to be left there. Therefore, at one stroke half of the whole sum disappeared. The second reason given by the right hon. Gentleman was that we had forty-five transports in the hire of the Government, and that we should have to keep that fleet up to its present strength as long as the war remained on its present footing. In other words, the right hon. Gentleman asked for this enormous amount of money on the ground that he expected that the war would go on for another year at its present magnitude. The right hon. Gentleman could not hop from one reason to another in that way. He must, or he ought to, base his Estimate, and justify it to the Committee, on some specific ground or on the forecast which was in the minds of the gentlemen in the War Office. They knew, from past experience, that the War Office was not very capable of making any accurate forecast, but they were entitled to get a simple statement of the forecast on which the Estimate was based. That they had not got, and the Committee was left completely in the dark. The right hon. Gentleman had not given a satisfactory answer to any of the points raised in the course of the debate.

said he was rather surprised at the tone taken by the hon. Member for East Mayo because of the answer he had given to the hon. Member's query. He was very far from desiring to conceal anything from the House. There was nothing whatever to conceal. All those who were acquainted with framing Estimates—and no one more so than his hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn—must know that nothing was so easy as to divide up a total into definite figures, under such heads as those, but first they must have an exact knowledge of the amount of work to be done under each item. The question was how much they had precisely to spend on each item. He had told the Committee that a part of the Estimate was for bringing back a large number of troops from South Africa in the course of the year. But when the time came for these troops to be brought home, they could not all be brought away in transports which they had at command, or were at present engaged in travelling to and fro from South Africa. When the time came when Lord Kitchener could release troops home, it would depend entirely whether at the moment they could use their own transports, or be compelled to hire additional transports. Then as to the troops going out to South Africa, they could not always tell whether the troops would be ready by a given date, and as to whether they should not want their own transports, or extra transports. The total cost could not be estimated by any calculation of the number of men to be conveyed by their own fleet or by subsidiary vessels and therefore the observations of the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo and the strong expressions from the hon. Member for King's Lynn fell to the ground. The hon. Member for Dulwich had asked a question as to whether the Government intended to bring back all the horses from South Africa. He was afraid that a great many of the horses had found a permanent home out there, but, apart from officers' chargers, there was no idea of bringing back ordinary troopers' horses.

Is it the fact that the Government are bringing back horses at the present time?

said there might be isolated cases of officers' chargers being brought back, but he was not aware that troopers' horses were being brought back. On the contrary, they were sending out horses, which, when the war was at an end, would be useful for other purposes than remounts. As to demurrage, of course a certain amount had to be paid. That was obviously the case when demands were made for the transfer of troops from the Cape to Durban or Port Elizabeth, or from these ports to Cape Town, and the ships had to wait until the troops arrived. He was not aware that these questions were going to be asked, and therefore he had not beside him all the details of the demurrage that had been paid. He could assure hon. Gentlemen who had raised this question that he was very far from taking lightly this large Vote for which he asked. He did not suppose that anyone alive had tried more than he had done to come at the details of the expenditure in regard to the transports. He had made most careful investigation into the necessities of the case, and he found it desirable to continue the employment of the forty-five vessels which the Government had at their command. The average cost of hiring additional transports was now 20s., or under, per ton per month, but at one time it was 25s., 30s., and at another period of great stress it was as high as 35s. He had told the Committee where the ships were at present employed. He had given the average cost of transport, both as regarded men and horses, and if it had been in his power he would have given further details, but he could not do so from the necessities of the case.

said that during the course of the long struggle in which the country was engaged in South Africa he had never voted against supplies asked for by the Government; but he was not willing to vote money without understanding the purpose to which it was to be devoted. If he understood that the nine and a half millions asked for was for a particular purpose warranted by the War Office, he was perfectly prepared to vote for it, but, as far as he could understand the right hon. Gentleman, the Estimate might just as well be five millions or twenty millions.

said that the Estimate was carefully based on the movements of troops and on detailed calculations.

said that the right hon. Gentleman had stated that the Estimate had been carefully worked out, and that the result had been arrived at by adding together detailed Estimates. What the Committee was asking for was that such details should be submitted to it. The right hon. Gentleman also stated, and he was perfectly willing to accept it, that during the last ten years he had been one of the most vigorous critics of the War Office, and that he had succeeded in cutting down details of expenditure. But was the right hon. Gentleman not to have any successors? The right hon. Gentleman could not have succeeded if Governments in the past had acted in the way in which he himself was now acting by putting down general Estimates and shutting out from the Committee particular details. They asked that the right hon. Gentleman should now do what all Governments did in the past, and that they should have some opportunity of criticising the Estimate in detail. They were asked to vote away a general sum of money to be placed in the hands of the Government, but he was not prepared to place such confidence in them, nor in any other Government. As an independent Member he insisted on his right to criticise in detail the Estimates, but he could not criticise them unless he was furnished with information, and on that ground he would feel constrained to vote against the Estimate.

said he should like to know whether the Government had prepared any scheme whereby the Yeomanry and Militia now in South Africa might be allowed to remain there and to get employment in different avocations.

I do not see how that can arise.

said he wished to explain. It would arise if the men were given passes to return in a year hence if they did not get employment.

That is too remote.

said he was reluctant to oppose the Vote in any way, as he did not wish to oppose the proper carrying on of the war, but he thought that some idea ought to be given as to what the items were. The right hon. Gentleman must have had items to make up the total, and if the items were fictitious, then the Estimate must be fictitious also. There must also be some proportion between the items. It was absurd to provide for such things as bedding, victualling, and forage when they did not know how many troops were to be embarked and where they were to be sent.

said that the division between the items was fictitious.

said that was the point. The division between the items of the War Office were generally fictitious, because sums were transferred from one to another with the leave of the Treasury. He thought the proportion of the different items should be given to the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman said that the whole Estimate had been very carefully drawn up, and that, therefore, they ought not to ask what the items were. That was not reasonable, and he did not think that such a large sum had ever been asked for before without some idea as to how it was to be divided up having been given.

suggested that, at the least, hon. Members were entitled to have the information which Ministers had. If that were a true proposition, who was wasting the time of the House? Members had now been engaged just two hours in trying to elicit information. Either the Secretary of State for War had information on the subject or he had not. If he had not, why did he not say so frankly? If he had information, he ought to give it to the Com- mittee. Let him say that the amount was an estimate, and that he did not wish to be pinned to it. Why should not the Committee be treated honestly? He had listened to the debate, and, as a new Member, he was at a loss to know what it was all about. If the right hon. Gentleman had the information, he should give it to the Committee. If he had not, the Vote should not be allowed.

asked why fittings had been taken out of transports chartered by the Admiralty, and replaced by Government fittings at considerable expense. He wished to know how many of the transports were horse transports. The right hon. Gentleman stated that a horse transport which would carry 400 horses would cost on an average £5,000 per month, and that if such transports were detained for several months the cost would be very considerable. He desired to know how many of them had been detained for long periods in South Africa. He wished to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that although they had been debating a Vote of nine and a half millions for an hour and a half, not a single representative of the Admiralty had thought it worth his while to be present. That was treating the House of Commons with contempt. They were asking the right hon. Gentleman questions, and the representatives of the officials responsible were not present to give him the information which he had a right to ask of them. He thought the Committee would be justified in voting for the reduction.

said that with reference to the removal of the fittings there had been considerable discussion as to the best mode of conveying

said the noble Lord did not answer his question as to why fittings had been taken out of transports.

said it was because the Admiralty plan was to have long stalls and slings, and the fittings were taken out and replaced with Admiralty fittings.

asked how many horses were being brought from South Africa.

said he was not aware that any horses other than the horses to which he had already referred were being brought back.

said he desired to call attention to the extravagance of the present system under which remounts were purchased for His Majesty's service. The Committee was asked to vote a sum of £3,119,000 for this purpose, and he was of opinion that if a different system was adopted a considerable permanent saving might result to the national exchequer. The present process was extravagant to a terrible extent. The remount officer gave notice to a horse dealer that in a certain time he should require for the Remount Department a certain number of horses. The dealer then bought horses, very often considerably below the average of what was required, and on a particular day the remount officer went to the depôt and purchased eighty or ninety horses an hour at an average price of at least £5 per head more than that at which the dealer had bought them. It might be said that there was no other machinery which could be used for the purchase of remounts, but he ventured to suggest that the adjutants to the Yeomanry, who were to be reappointed under the Army reorganisation scheme, might be usefully employed in their own districts for this purpose. If a saving only of £2 a head was effected it would amount, on the sum the Committee was asked to vote, to no less than £200,000. The Government might also purchase a large supply of remounts through the Yeomanry themselves. He was not speaking on this matter without experience, he himself having had to purchase large numbers of horses for the Imperial Yeomanry, and he was perfectly convinced, if such a system as he suggested were in force, it would result in a very great saving to the country. Another object he had for moving the Amendment which stood in his name was that a very large amount of the money paid for remounts went into the pockets of the wrong persons. Everybody knew that horse dealers throughout the country were making immense sums of money, and if that could he diverted so that it went into the pockets of the farmers and breeders of the horses which eventually found their way into the remount depôts of the service a great benefit would be conferred on a struggling industry.

wished to know whether the Government was still buying horses from abroad. There was no doubt whatever that during the last eighteen months or two years a great deal of rubbish had been bought from Austria-Hungary. He also wished to know whether the inquiry which had been promised with regard to the swindles which had taken place in South Africa in connection with horses purchased in Buda Pesth and Vienna was being prosecuted. The difference in the prices at which those horses were purchased, and at which they were sold to the Government, left as much as £10 or £20 per horse, which was divided among those who purchased them. It was nothing less than a wicked robbery, for the horses sent to South Africa were of a most inferior class, and the use of such inferior horses had, no doubt, resulted in the death of hundreds and thousands of our men. It was of no use the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head. He had supplied the right hon. Gentleman with evidence and letters upon the subject of the most reliable character, and it was perfectly well known that this swindle was being perpetrated. The reason he had asked for the inquiry to be held was that it was insinuated that certain officers in His Majesty's service were mixed up in the swindle, and that was a very serious matter. The Ministers of Agriculture, both at Buda Pesth and Vienna, were prepared to give every information, and were disgusted that no inquiry had been made upon the subject. The horses were purchased and sold to the Government at a profit of sometimes £25 and the spoil divided, and were the worst horses that could be picked up off the streets. Was the same class of horse still being bought, and were the same people making the purchases? He believed that all the horses required for this purpose could be bred in this country and Ireland, but that was a question which might be discussed at another time; but with regard to the purchase of horses at Buda Pesth and Vienna he thought there ought to be a very strict inquiry.

said he quite endorsed what had been said in regard to the horses purchased from all parts. A great number of them came from America, Canada, and South America, and those horses were quite unfit to undergo a sea voyage or to mount our men in South Africa. They were subject to colds, and quite unfit for the service. Those horses often came over in ships which were not suitable for carrying them, and they suffered from all kinds of diseases, and yet they were sold to the Government as good English horses, bred in this country. He thought the Government ought to have depots throughout the country to which farmers could bring their horses, and where they would get the full prices paid by the Government. The adoption of such a course would encourage farmers to breed horses. Certainly the present system of allowing the middleman to make all the profit was one which could not be for the benefit of the country at large. The farmers knew that prices had been paid for foreign horses that they would have been very glad to accept for their own horses, and they felt this very much. With regard to the question of colonial horses, Australian horses were notably good. Our colonial troops had done effective service on colonial horses, which could be bought in Australia at from £10 to £20 each, which was just about half the price the Government had been paying. If the surplus horses of Australia were sent over here at the market price, and were purchased by the Government, that would also encourage colonial breeders. Then there was the question motor-cars. This country was very far behind other countries in providing motor-cars, which could be maintained at less cost than horses. For about £80 they coul obtain a motor of five horse power, able to carry two men and a small gun. By this means they would be able to bring their troops into positions into which they could not get on horseback. Upon motor-cars they would find that the soldiers would be able to get to places which it would be impossible for a horse to reach, and he thought motor-cars would enable them to deal very effectively with the war in South Africa. On horseback men were shot down very rapidly, but upon a motor-car with a small bullet-proof shield the men would not be so liable to be shot down as they had been in the past. Armies abroad were now using the motor-car, and they were largely used by France and Germany. Motor-cars would play a very important part in future warfare, because they would be able to carry a miniature gun and two men, who would be able to protect themselves in a way which would be absolutely hopeless on horseback. He hoped this matter would receive the right hon. Gentleman's attention.

said he did not know what view the Government took in regard to accusations of corruption, but it seemed to him that this was a somewhat serious matter. They had just heard an accusation made, not by a person below the gangway or a pro-Boer, but by an hon. Baronet sitting on the Tory side, who did not make rash accusations every day. The hon. Baronet the Member for Dulwich said that he had got this information in his possession.

said he had handed the letters over to the Government.

Then the Government had in their possession evidence that British officers had been taking bribes. Officers were not in the House of Commons to defend themselves, and the honour of the Army was in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The Secretary for War had in his possession evidence that British officers had taken bribes, and yet he did not get up and answer the charge, and he allowed hon. Members to rise one after the other without even answering them.

It would be quite impossible for me to intervene after every individual speech. Anything that has occurred which it is desirable to have cleared up I am perfectly ready to clear up, and either my noble friend or myself will answer it.

said that an hon. Baronet on the Ministerial side had accused British officers of taking bribes, and now the right hon. Gentleman stated that he did not think anything had occurred to justify him answering the accusation.

I said nothing of the kind. What I said was that I did not think anything had occurred which rendered it necessary for me to trouble the House with a reply at the moment, before other Members had spoken.

said he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he considered that up to the present nothing had happened to induce him to intervene in the debate, and that he intended to deal with the question at some other time. Upon an important matter like this they found the Secretary of State for War, who was the guardian of the honour of the Army, actually stated that an accusation of this nature was a thing which he might talk about at some other time.

I wish to point out to the hon. Member that the hon. Baronet has not made a statement with which it would be possible for me to deal at the present moment. I have not seen the Papers referred to, but I shall be perfectly ready to deal with the matter in the course of this discussion, and either my noble friend or myself will deal with it.

said the Papers on this subject had been handed over to the War Office, and the right hon. Gentleman had not taken the trouble to read them. It seemed to him an extraordinary thing that a Tory baronet should accuse officers of the Army of accepting bribes, that the Papers should be communicated to the Government, and that the Secretary of State should pay no attention to the matter. It was time the House should pay attention to it. It was high time that there should be an inquiry held into this matter, because it was very difficult for a private Member to bring before the House questions which must be largely matters of gossip and inference. There was no doubt that there were many men in this country to-day in possession of large sums of money who were very badly off when this war began. He knew of a case where a man was reported to be well off—worth £50,000. "How did he make it?" was the question. "Oh, buying horses for the Government." He was now living like a rich man, and he had no ostensible means of making his wealth except by buying horses for the Government. The class of horses sent out to South Africa had been a very bad class.

Certainly not.

Would the right hon. Gentleman call it a good class of horse which died on the roadside? He did not know who bought horses in the Argentine for the Government, but they had bought a good many straight from the grass. If they bought a horse from the grass he had to be fed on corn and hay, and exercised for at least three months before he had muscle enough to do his work. [Ministerial cries of "No, no."] Hon. Members cried out "No, no," but let them ask their coachmen about the matter. If they had had a coachman at the War Office he would have known this. A horse which had been fed on nothing else but grass would take three months to get into condition.

No, no.

The hon. Member has evidently not consulted his coachman.

I beg the hon. Member's pardon, for I have consulted my coachman.

said everybody knew that a horse imported from Australia very rarely got into condition before something like six, nine, or twelve months. If they took a horse from grass and carried him over the sea to South Africa it would be little short of a miracle if he got into condition in four or six months. Argentine horses, as a rule, were good animals, if the right ones were obtained, and they were celebrated for their endurance. Many Argentine horses had been sent straight from grass to the front without any condition upon them, and they died off like flies. Was that good management? Was he stating too much when he said it was a pity that the right hon. Gentleman did not consult his own coachman? What were the arrangements for horse purchasing which were being made to-day? They had got down £3,100,000 for horses, and what arrangements had been made to guard against these mistakes in the future? He wished to know how many horses were at the front now, and how many were at the base being brought into condition. For every two horses at the front there ought to be one kept in reserve at the base. They were told just before the last General Election that the war was over, but it had gone on, and was still going on. And why was it going on? Was it because English soldiers were worse fighting men than the Boers, or that English officers were worse than the Boer officers? It was nothing of the kind, for this was simply a question of horseflesh. If a man on a grass-fed horse was sent to chase a man on a horse in good condition he would not catch him in twelve months. He thought it was about time that this matter was attended to. Anyone who was conversant with the way horses had been bought for the War Office, either in Great Britain or abroad, knew that somebody had been buying horses whose hands were not clean. A serious accusation had been brought forward by the hon. Baronet opposite, who had asked for an inquiry, and who had accused British officers of taking bribes. Was it not time that such an inquiry was granted, and was it not time that the Leader of the House was present to hear this discussion?

No.

said that apparently the right hon. Gentleman thought that this was not necessary.

I assure the hon. Member that I know as much about horses as he does.

said if it was true that the right hon. Gentleman had been sending grass-fed animals to South Africa, he had not been giving the country the benefit of that knowledge of horses of which he was boasting so freely. He thought it was a somewhat cheap sneer for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he knew more about horses than he did, but that was immaterial to the question. The horses had been badly bought, and the right hon. Gentleman was responsible. The Secretary for War was the person they had to call to account for those transactions. Here was a serious accusation made before the House by a responsible Member on the Government side, and they were amply entitled to press the demand for an inquiry, and ask that the Government should put on the Table the necessary Papers. They had a right to insist that allegations of corruption which had been made by the hon. Baronet opposite should be probed to the very bottom, in the interests of the taxpayers of this country.

I will first deal with some of the more milder criticisms. In regard to the provision of remounts, I feel it rather difficult to say what would be possible in the future, as we are just about to appoint a Committee which I hope will lay before the country definite plans as to the best way of obtaining horses in the future, not only in this country but also from our colonies. It is impossible that we should always have enough horses actually on the spot to meet our requirements in cases of emergency, and in some form a retaining fee must be paid to owners for the use of their horses. How that scheme can be developed it is impossible for me to say; but I am glad to say that all the colonial Governments are prepared, as far as I can judge, to meet us as well as they can. I hope we shall be able to evolve some scheme which will prevent in the future our having to pay, what I admit we had to pay during the late crisis, panic prices for horses. The hon. Member for the Westbury Division put forward a proposal that we should purchase horses through the adjutants of Yeomanry regiments direct from the owners and breeders. That is a suggestion well worthy of attention, although I am not quite sure myself that we should not do better by taking advantage of agricultural shows, and employing local authorities. That is a question for us to consider in the future. I entirely agree with the hon. Member when he says that as far as possible we should get horses direct from the breeders. Of course we must make some arrangement by which private breeders should bring their horses up to a certain point, and then we can send down officers to select what we require. It would be perfectly impossible to have remount officers going all over the country picking up a horse here and there. Earlier in the session my right hon. friend asked me to look into the question of dealing directly with the breeders, and I confess it has not been a gigantic success. In one case an officer was sent down to a place in England to buy horses from breeders who were asked to bring the horses up to a certain point. Every sort of rubbish was brought to him, and the result was that he went away with only two or three horses, pursued by a shower of stones from those people whose horses he had not bought. But if local committees were appointed to weed out the horses before the officer was sent down, I think that would he a feasible plan, and I hope to see it in operation. The hon. Member for the Romford Division has mentioned motor-cars as remounts. A Committee of which I am chairman has gone into the question of motor-cars for transport purposes. They have issued a prospectus in which they offer very large prizes, and they hope to get types of vehicles which at all events would be available for transport. They have not gone into the question whether motor-cars should be used for remounts. The spectacle of a regiment of motor-cars charging, no doubt, would be inspiriting; but I do not think such a scheme would be likely to prove any permanent advantage to the Army. With regard to the accusations of the hon. Baronet the Member for Dulwich, the hon. Baronet has given me privately certain letters containing insinuations with regard to the buying of horses in Austria. These letters, I think he will admit, were handed to me privately, to make any use I could of them. These letters make accusations of corruption, but against no particular individual. After seeing some gentlemen whom the hon. Baronet brought to my room, I communicated the substance of the letters to my right hon. friend, who told me to go into the question thoroughly, and to probe the accusations to the bottom. I went at once to the Commander-in-Chief, and the House will understand that, if anything is going wrong, proclaiming it on the housetops is not the best way to find it out. That very day inquiries began, and are still going on; inquiries are being made, and shall be made, and the House may rest assured that if any accusation that has been made can be brought home to any individual it will undoubtedly be done. But the accusation was not made against any particular individual—I think the hon. Baronet will bear me out in that?

There was no name definitely mentioned. These letters were handed over six months since, and all I have asked is that inquiries should be made and the matter thoroughly investigated, because insinuations are made against people even if names are not mentioned.

Quite so; but most—I might almost say the whole—of the accusations contained in the letters refer to a time when we had not a single Government buyer in Austria. The Imperial Yeomanry at that time bought their own horses; they undertook to do so. These officers were not under us in any way whatever, and therefore the Government can hardly be held responsible for the purchases of these officers. At the same time, inquiry is being made—not on the house-top, but privately—and if anything can be done to bring home any failing on the part either of Government buyers or Yeomanry buyers the House can rest assured that the Commander-in-Chief and my right hon. friend will be the first to wish to see it done. I must apologise for not having risen directly after the hon. Baronet had spoken. It must not be thought for one moment that I was going to allow accusations to be made against the honour of officers in the Army without desiring at once to reply. I had no such intention. I am confident, notwithstanding all the accusations which have been made, that we shall be able to prove that there is not one word of truth in the theory of corruption which has been brought forward. Various accusations are always being made against buyers of horses. ["Sellers."] Yes, and buyers also. Anonymous letters are continually being sent saying "this buyer came down; he did not buy my horse, which was a good horse, but bought my neighbour's horse, which was a bad one." One person made a most violent accusation against the man from whom we bought most of our horses in Austria, but by the same post there arrived—although it was not posted at the same time—an application for this person to take the place of the man whom he had been traducing. In nearly all these matters there is a certain amount of personal animus, but I will undertake—and my right hon. friend will bear me out in that undertaking—that if any definite accusation is made against any particular individual every possible endeavour shall be made to bring that officer to judgment.

expressed his satisfaction with the account given by the Financial Secretary to the War Office of the inquiries being and to be made in regard to these purchases of Hungarian horses. Reference had been made to payment by the War Office for the registration of horses in the future. Within the last two or three weeks a memorandum had been issued from the War Office asking the Volunteer forces to provide themselves with transport. For the services of the transport they were to receive £1 per day, although the cost would certainly not be less than 30s., and no fee was allowed for registering the horses to be used on active service whenever necessary for the purposes of transport. It was hopeless for the War Office to attempt to get horses for these purposes unless the Volunteers were allowed a certain sum for registration. He believed the Government were on the right track in this most important matter, but they could not expect big contractors to put horses at the disposal of the Volunteers unless some such allowance was made. In the various arguments which had been advanced on the one side or the other a very serious financial aspect of this Vote had escaped attention. No less than eight millions of money were being voted for the services of remounts, and everybody admitted that at the beginning of the war the system was wasteful in the extreme. It was, therefore, very unsatisfactory to find that as late as June 3rd of this year a letter appeared in The Times from a correspondent in South Africa, according to which the horses were at the present moment being wasted almost to the same extent—certainly in the same proportion. The writer pointed out that horses were put into requisition before they had had time to recover from the voyage. Much of the waste of horses in the war had been due to the want of skilled veterinary services. A great number of the horses which had had to be shot or abandoned would have been saved if they had had proper treatment, and the troops would have been given greater mobility than they had had during the whole course of the war. Another point in connection with the Vote was that the Committee had had no indication as to how much had been spent on horses, mules, and trek oxen respectively. The right hon. Gentleman had casually mentioned that 260,000 animals had been sent to South Africa, but the Committee had been kept in ignorance of the amount paid per head. According to the consular reports the average payment for mules worked out at about £20. Why should this absurd secrecy continue? Accusations—which he did not believe—had been made with regard to money going into the hands of officers, but the possibility of such accusations would be avoided by a statement of the exact amount paid by the War Office and the precise number of animals purchased. It was also desirable that the Committee should know what had been the expenditure of horse flesh and mule flesh by the cavalry, the artillery, and the transport services.

was not aware whether this question of remounts would form a part of the inquiry to be held at the close of the war, but certainly the lamentable waste of horses had been one of the blots of the campaign in South Africa. As to the horses sent out, his opinion was that they were not of a very good class. A little experience was worth a great deal of theory, and from his experience of Indian and Australian horses he firmly believed that English horses were the best in the world. He had always been a great believer in English and Irish horses, and in that belief he bought in London most of the horses upon which his corps were mounted. He had no difficulty in getting good sound horses, and he bought them at the regulation Government price. As far as South Africa was concerned, he was fortunate in that his horses had had a few days to recover from the effects of a bad passage, and they also had the advantage of grass-feeding on the march from Bloemfontein. From that time the hard work began, and until they reached Pretoria the horses had probably the same sort of hammering as other horses in South Africa, but upon their arrival the horses of his company were in better condition than those of any of the other troops with whom they were brigaded. Many of the other troops had had remounts, and one cavalry regiment had been remounted three times with horses obtained from various parts of the world; and his experience in South Africa confirmed the opinion he had formed after experience in Egypt and India—that if an English horse had a few days to recover after landing he was worth two or three horses from any other country. The whole subject of obtaining remounts for the Army generally was a most important one, and he was glad to hear the possibility of getting our own horses in England and Ireland was to be inquired into. The present system was essentially bad, and, tested by the war, had absolutely broken down. In the interests of the Army and of the country at large, particular weight should be given to this question when the full investigation at the close of the war was made. We had learnt by bitter experience that we particularly wanted men to ride horses, and therefore the horses to carry those men were a most important factor. He suggested the adoption of a system of breeding farms and the laying down of some definite plan by which the supply of horses for the Army should be kept up.

I must ask the Committee to pardon me for intervening again so soon, but I must answer my noble friend's remarks. He has spoken of the horses he bought in London, and he gave us to understand that we might have bought many more. He also says that his horses lasted better than those we bought. I happen to know something about the company the noble Lord was in, because my brother was not only in it then, but he is still out there. As to the work those horses had to do, they did not join us until we reached Princetown, which must have been about the 18th of May; they had a rest of some days at Bloemfontein, and joined headquarters at Princetown. They went on to Johannesburg, where, again, they had, I think, three days rest. They then went into Pretoria, and about the 16th or 17th June came back to Johan- nesburg. From that time until the noble Lord came home the corps did not leave Johannesburg, although I admit they were doing arduous outpost work at that place.

did not wish there to be any mistake. He referred in his remarks to the time they reached Pretoria, and his point was that his horses marched in the same time and under the same starvation conditions between Bloemfontein and Pretoria.

I wish to assure the noble Lord that the horses had less work, as a matter of fact, than most of the other horses in the Colony. Can the noble Lord tell us the percentage of his horses that died?

About 50 per cent.

My information is that it was a little higher than that. But I do not think we can judge the matter by any individual case, and the Committee must not be led into thinking that all the horses sent out were of a bad class.

Could you tell us the total number sent out?

I am afraid I could not state the total number of horses sent out. From the commencement of the war until the 31st May, 172,985 horses and 80,733 mules were sent out. In the next figures that I have horses and mules are not separated; on the 11th May, 1901, there were being fed a total of 185,000 animals, excluding oxen, so that out of 253,708, plus any horses that were bought in the colony, there were left on the 1st of May a total of 185,000.

agreed that English horses beat almost any other horses in South Africa, although the native horses there ranked very high. It was unfortunate that advantage was not taken earlier of local supplies by taking horses from the Boers. That that was not done was due to a desire to treat the Boers very well, as undoubtedly we had done. He did not agree in condemning the class of horses sent out because of the percentage of deaths. Owing to the necessities of the case, horses were sent up country directly they were landed; they were then not adequately fed, and consequently they scarcely had a fair chance. He was not favourably impressed with the Argentine horses; they appeared to have no heart in them. Hunting men knew the importance of horses being in condition, but these unfortunate horses had no condition at all, because directly they arrived they were rushed up to the front and given to the troops at once. Moreover, the horses were inadequately fed. The column he was with had great difficulty in getting supplies at all. Their English horses were sometimes on two pounds of oats a day, and at one time they had nothing but a handful of mealies. Under these circumstances the horses dropped out very rapidly, and it was often a matter of anxiety whether one would be able to get his men home at night with their horses, or whether the horses would not have to be left, and the men get home as best they could. It had been said that the mortality amongst the horses was greatly due to the Yeomanry being bad horse-masters. He did not think that was so at all. A great many of the Yeomanry went out with very little knowledge of horses, but they were most anxious to learn. The horses were inspected every night, and he maintained that the men, who were a very intelligent class, became excellent horse-masters in their own interest before very long.

said the chances which the horses got on reaching South Africa fully justified the extraordinary mortality which took place. With regard to the charges of swindling brought forward by the hon. Member for the Dulwich Division, he was sure the Committee would be thoroughly relieved by the statement of the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the War Office. He thought very few Members believed that there had been any corruption. Although he had heard of large fortunes being made, these fortunes were made by contractors who had supplied horses for the troops, but he had not heard that British officers were suspected of making money in that way, and he did not believe it. One reason for the extraordinary mortality of the horses was the absolute want of fairplay which they received, a great many of them being sent to the front within twenty-four hours of their disembarcation. The orders from the Chief of the Staff were, however, imperative, and had to be obeyed. Another reason was to be found to some extent in the composition of the irregular corps; for it was not to be expected that engineers, stokers, waiters, and riff-raff, men with no knowledge of horses, could be turned into horse-masters even in a few weeks. He blamed the Government for their want of foresight in regard to the Remount Department, which in June, 1899, consisted of but one depot in England and one in Ireland, with a total, he believed, of only six officers. The war had not lasted many months before that Department had to be greatly enlarged. He must say that the work done by the Department had been unprecedented and most praiseworthy. He trusted that an inquiry would be made into all these matters. He was in favour of free trade in the breeding of horses rather than of Government breeding establishments, and thought that breeders of horses should obtain more encouragement from the Government. He believed we should follow the example of Canada and Australia, where horses were bred by private gentlemen.

said he would like to impress on the Government what had already been done in France and Germany with respect to the use of motor-cycles for military purposes. He thought the Government might well devote a little attention to this subject. Cyclist corps had already proved to be extremely useful, and if equipped with motorcycles would be even more effective. Motors, too, were necessary for transport and commissariat if we were to hold our place in any war in this or in other civilised country.

said that after listening to the speeches which had been made they could only come to the conclusion that the remount system in South Africa had been conducted on a most wasteful principle. The question of remounts was most important. The field army of the future must be to a very great extent a mounted army. Every cavalry regiment ought to have a large number of remounts, so that we could send our, without delay not raw animals, but trained, tried, and selected animals. The most perfect scheme for remounts would be one by which in the wild parts of the south of England, some parts of Scotland, and in Ireland horses bought cheaply and selected carefully should be kept ready to remount each of the cavalry regiments at the brigade centre. Our remount system needed revolutionising. He believed, indeed, that every department in the Army wanted revolutionising. We must have an ample reserve of horses as well as an ample reserve of men.

We have listened to some interesting speeches. It is assumed, somewhat hastily, I think, that there has been some very considerable breakdown in the whole question of remounts for South Africa. My hon. and gallant friend who has just sat down is under the impression that we started this war without any reserve at all. We had a reserve of 14,000 horses. These horses were available the moment the war broke out. The difficulty lay in the distance of the seat of war. I do not, however, wish to put a couleur de rose statement before the House. I quite admit that when it came to be a question of sending out an enormous number of horses from all parts of the world some horses were sent that did not prove altogether satisfactory. The hon. Member for Pembroke stated that a large number of horses were sent which ought never to have been sent at all. I demur a little to that statement, and also to the imputation he made.

called attention to the speech of the noble Lord opposite, who stated that he had made inquiry on the subject. He thought a Parliamentary inquiry would be better. He made no imputation.

I do not wish to bandy words with the hon. Gentleman. He made a vehement attack upon me and upon my noble friend who dealt with that question. I can only say, with regard to imputations of corruption in the matter of horse-dealing, if any come before me, that I shall always act in the most stringent manner consistent with justice in order to ensure that there shall be no waste of public money in that way. The Government has not the slightest desire to shield anybody who may be guilty. As regards the Argentine horses, the hon. Gentleman endeavoured to saddle me with the responsibility for all the bad horses that were bought there. The purchase of horses in the Argentine was stopped before I came into office, and consequently that accusation is wholly unfounded. I have been asked what are the prices of horses bought in various countries. I have no objection to give the Committee generally the prices which we have had to pay for horses. It is said that our horses from home are the best horses. I think that is probably to a large extent true, but they are also the most expensive horses. The Government pay for cavalry and artillery horses at home on an average about £72; the horses obtained from Canada cost on the spot about £30; and those obtained in Australia, the United States, and Hungary vary from about £20 to £25. We have had, of course, to consider the class of horses which could be obtained and the rapidity with which they could be brought together. It has been asked why we did not take all the horses in the Orange Free State and the Transvaal. Lord Roberts told me that he had seen very few left in the Orange Free State and the Transvaal, as they had been cleared away by the enemy as they retired. As to Cape Colony, I would remind the Committee that without martial law you may buy, but you cannot requisition, horses. When martial law was put into operation horses were requisitioned, and, in point of fact, Lord Kitchener bought 41,000 horses in the month of January in South Africa, and we have been supplying horses at the rate of 10,000 a month for the last six months. I have received during this discussion a telegram from Lord Kitchener, who cannot have anticipated the debate, in which he mentions that his mounted troops are well and suitably mounted. The Government are quite aware of the necessity of putting the remount establishment on the best possible basis, but it is impossible for the cavalry when at home to have two horses apiece, as the drill would not permit of a man looking after two horses. We will see that a suitable reserve of horses is established, and we are carefully considering the sources of supply which the experience of the war has shown to be the best. My noble friend, who has some knowledge of horseflesh, has undertaken the charge of a Committee which is investigating the matter. I believe that when the record of the war comes to be written and the inquiry of which we have heard so much takes place it will be found that the mortality among horses was chiefly due to the fact that they had to be used before they had sufficiently recovered from the sea voyage. That is accountable for the greater part of the expenditure on horses in South Africa.

said that what they complained of was that there had not been a sufficient reserve of horses during the war, and that even at the present moment there was not a sufficient reserve. He asked the Secretary of State for War what the reserve was in South Africa at the present moment, besides the horses actually in use.

said that he had asked Lord Kitchener whether he desired more horses to be sent in order to form such a reserve, and Lord Kitchener replied that he was satisfied with the present supply.

said that that authority was the highest and best, and it was quite sufficient for him; but there was a letter in Monday's Times in which it was stated that—

"unless a large reserve camp of remounts is formed from which horses are never to be disturbed until perfectly fit to perform the work they are called upon to do, and unless officers concern themselves more directly with the care of the horses ridden by their men, our operations will always be seriously handicapped."

said he wished to ask a question with reference to the inquiry which the Secretary of War was now holding as to the allegations of corruption made by the hon. Member for Dulwich. As he understood it, the Papers had been in the hands of the Financial Secretary to the War Office for six months.

said, although he could not remember the exact date, the Papers were only placed in his hands during the Easter holidays.

said that when this matter which concerned the honour of British officers, which it was everyone's wish to jealously guard, had been probed to the bottom, he hoped the noble Lord would publish the result of the inquiry.

said that allegations of criminal corruption had been made, but they had not been specified in individual cases. But he would take care that the whole business should be brought forward and investigated. The allegations extended over a considerable period of time.

said what he wanted to make sure of was that if there was any foundation for these allegations of corruption, they should be publicly stated, and the responsibility should be brought home to the right people.

said there was another point which he wished to raise that had not yet been mentioned. A great deal of the expense and waste which had occurred in connection with the horses in South Africa had been caused not so much by the want of quality as by the enormous weights which they had to carry on their backs. He had reliable information from many friends in South Africa that the horses had to carry 18, 19, or even 20 stone. The experience of many generations in the employment of jockeys, hunt servants, postillions, and second horsemen, had taught them that if you want to get the best work out of horses in the way of pace and endurance you must put light men on their backs, but the wisdom of the War Office had absolutely excluded the light men from the Army. There were two disadvantages in the existing practice. One was that they did not get the men best fitted for the work; and the other was that they quite unnecessarily restricted the field of recruiting. They calmly and deliberately excluded from the Army enormous numbers of men who could do everything that a soldier was required to do. He thought the attention of Parliament and the country ought to be called to the fact that they had been systematically and habitually overweighting their horses, and that they were systematically and designedly excluding light-weight men from the Army.

wished to emphasise the fact that neither he nor the hon. Member for Westbury desired to exclude horses from Canada or Australia. What they did wish was that purchases should be made locally. The War Office should give notice that officers to purchase would attend fairs, and they would buy direct from the farmers at £28 instead of giving £40 to the dealers. He hoped that after the satisfactory speech of the right hon. the Secretary of State for War his hon. friend would withdraw his motion.

said that the answer of the Secretary of State for War was perfectly unsatisfactory. The Government had instituted an action for the refund of enormous sums paid for remounts. He was not aware whether the case was sub judice.

Yes, it is.

said that in that case he would not pursue that point further. The right hon. Gentleman had just read out a telegram from Lord Kitchener declaring, that his mounted troops were now satisfactorily, mounted. But he had in his hand a statement by one of the chief correspondents of The Times at present with Sir Bindon Blood's column, dated from the headquarters at Middelburg, 6th May, in which he said—

"Owing to the difficulty experienced in securing fresh horses, the efficiency of the columns hurried from place to place is seriously impaired. The troops are for the most part pitiably mounted. Horses are put into requisition before they have had time to recover from the effects of the sea voyage, and after being admitted to the sick lines, have to be given out again while still in an unfit condition."

pointed out that after Cape Colony was put under martial law, in some districts the commandants had taken the trouble to secure every horse, so that none were left for the Boers; but there were many districts in which that work had not been

said he was quite satisfied with the assurance that had been given him by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, and begged leave to withdraw his motion.

asked what size the horses were that were now being bought for remounts. He understood that they were expected to carry 16 to 18 stone weight and that they were only 14½ to 15 hands high.

said it was not possible to answer the hon. Member. It did not follow that because a horse was small it was unable to carry a certain weight.

said he wished the Committee to understand that the country was paying from £40 to £50 for ponies only 14½ to 15 hands high.

contended that the action of the Government in connection with the supply of horses for the South African war had been at fault from top to bottom. With regard to the transport of horses, the loss in horseflesh had been extravagant from every point of view. No fewer than fifteen transports left this country at the outset of the war carrying on an average 294 horses each; seventeen transports started out from Australia with a total of 8,383 horses, and thirty two from Buenos Ayres with a total of 25,872. One would have supposed that at least the fifteen transports from this country would have carried a veterinary surgeon. One would have thought that at least that precaution would have been taken when sending valuable horses across the sea; because the horses sent from this country were the most valuable; they averaged £40 per head, when purchased at three and four years old, and when they had been trained were valued at £70 apiece. It might be said that the Government were not aware of the fact that they would require so many veterinary surgeons. But he himself drew attention on the Estimates previously to the war to the deplorable state of the Army Veterinary Department, which had only sixty-three executive veterinary officers at the outbreak of the war. With regard to the seventeen ships from Australia and thirty-two from Buenos Ayres, men known as cattle runners were placed on board sixty-four ships, to take care of 38,665 horses. Up to June, 1901, 70,784 reached South Africa from North and South America, Australia, and Hungary. Of the number transported, 3,119 died. That was, he admitted, not a large proportion; but of that number a considerable portion would have been saved if veterinary surgeons had been carried by the ships. Of mules there were 70,769 transported, of which 2,471 died on route. This was a very large proportion indeed. To show the loss which had occurred through, as he contended, want of proper supervision, he quoted the case of the M. battery of the Royal Horse Artillery. That battery was created at New Bridge, but it had not its proper complement of horses. The horses were brought out from England without proper inspection, and pink eye broke out among them, and the whole Battery was infected. Again, scratch teams were sent from England which picked up the battery at New Bridge. They were untrained and unknown to the men for service, and that in his opinion was not the proper way to send a battery into action. Then there was the case of the "Rapidan," on which glanders broke out with most deplorable results. His contention was that the Remount Department ought to be controlled by the Army Veterinary Department, and that all purchases and shipments of horses should be under that Department, which would give us a definite Department upon which responsibility could be saddled. In the case of all great carrying companies—omnibus and the like—in this country all the horses were bought by the veterinary surgeons, and the results in these cases were fairly good. Another point to which he wished to draw attention was the fact that, out of the 250,000 animals which were used in the early stages of the war in South Africa, only 20,000 were purchased in South Africa. In other words, proper advantage was not taken of the opportunity to purchase properly seasoned horses on the spot. The system of station hospitals in India for horses acted admirably, and the Government were obliged to send for some of the staff of those hospitals for service in South Africa, and they were the only hospitals which had done any really satisfactory work. The loss of so many horses in South Africa was due to the fact that the veterinary surgeons had nobody to give an order to, the farriers and shoeing smiths being under the officers of their own regiments. The wastage of animals had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman to be some 10,000 a month, but this was very greatly under the mark. A few months ago it was about 7,500 a week; between 400,000 and 500,000 animals had been used up during the first seventeen months of the war. The casualties among those animals—he included mules and trek oxen—was 15 per cent., whilst from mismanagement, starvation, and abandonment on the veldt it was 35 per cent. Most people had read the details which had appeared in the press of the terrible sufferings of the horses which were left to die. It was said that they could not be despatched, because firing in the rear of a force would be a dangerous thing; but many of these poor beasts might have been despatched with case with a small pole dagger, such as was used in Spanish bull-fights. England, which ought to be the first country in the world in matters regarding the welfare of dumb animals, was the most backward. The number of veterinary surgeons required when an army took the field was in Germany one for 200 animals; Russia, one for 120; France, one for 313; Italy, one for 180. In Austria he had not got the figures for an army on a war footing, but in time of peace they had one veterinary surgeon for 450 animals. We in South Africa had only had one veterinary surgeon to 1,200 animals, and it was not surprising that we had these immense losses. In the Transvaal and Natal there were 169 veterinary surgeons, and of these only 38 were Army veterinary surgeons. Thus there was only one Army veterinary surgeon for between 6,000 and 7,000 animals. It would be of small value to buy them carefully and to transport them successfully if, when these animals arrived at the seat of war, they were not taken care of. There were many ailments in horses which were of a purely military origin, such as sand cholic and acute rheumatism, and other ailments caused by starvation, wrong feeding, overwork, exhaustion, and want of water, and which seldom came within the purview of a civil veterinary surgeon, whose dealings were with horses properly fed and housed. There was one case of an officer's valuable charger which was being led along, and which suddenly lay down and could not be induced to move, which might have been saved had there been proper veterinary assistance. The veterinary surgeons who were sent out upon an emergency—although he did not wish to say anything derogatory to the civil vets.—were the worst class of veterinary surgeons.

Order, order! The hon. and gallant Member is now, I think, dealing with the Veterinary Department, the Estimate for which appears on Vote 1. He must now confine himself to the question of the horses.

desired respectfully to point out that when he attempted to deal with this matter under Vote 1 the Chairman had advised him to deal with it under the present Vote.

The hon. Member is in error.

said his whole point was that out of the £36,000,000 which Parliament was called upon to vote last year and this, millions might have been saved if the suggestion he formerly made had been carried out—namely, that the Army Veterinary Department should be enlarged and developed. The success of the entire campaign had been frustrated by the fact that there had not been at disposal a proper supply of properly-seasoned and cared-for horses. The delay of seven weeks after the occupation of Bloemfontein was entirely owing to the want of horseflesh, while General French in the ride of his cavalry division from the Modder to Kimberley had 1,000 horses unfit for further duty. The cause of all this was insufficient care in purchase and shipment, and also as regards preparation and training, and the want of station hospitals and staff.

said he desired some explanation as to the reduction of this Estimate. Last year the Estimate was £19,000,000 odd, and this year it was £16,000,000, showing a decrease of nearly £4,000,000. He thought the Committee ought to know the reason for this decrease. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the total estimated for this year was practically the same as last year, but that did not appear to be so in the case of this Vote, and the Committee ought to know on what basis the Government arrived at this Estimate. With regard to remounts, the Estimate was something like £6,000 less than last year, that was to say, there were 22,000 horses fewer. Why should that be so? The area of operations had considerably increased. There was a considerable waste of horseflesh. 100,000 to 200,000 square miles had been added to the area of operations, and all the previous Estimates had had to be doubled, and now the Government asked for a less amount than was expended last year. He would certainly like to know how the Estimate was arrived at; there were more mounted troops in the field, there were less remounts asked for! Nobody thought the campaign in Natal would last as long as it had done. With regard to that matter there had been a very great miscalculation. Was the noble Lord now prepared to say that he adhered to the Estimates, or was he prepared to admit that the Estimate was rather an under estimate?