There is little to chronicle in regard to the doings
of the House of Commons during the week. The report stages of the Licensing Bill and the Finance Bill have occupied the greater part of the time, but in neither case has much interest been displayed. The shadow of the "guillotine" takes all life out of Parliamentary debate. On Thursday, however, occurred " a Parliamentary incident " which caused not a little gossip. Speaking of the expenditure on the Army, Mr. Brodrick said :—" One of the chief critics of expenditure during the earlier years of the Government was now responsible for the War Office, and the speeches which that Minister now made showed that in his hope an efficient result might be attained with a considerable decrease in expenditure. He would not discuss that point until the full figures were before the House, but he thought it would be found that, speaking generally, a decrease of expenditure in the War Depart- ment must be carried out in connection with a decreased force. Whether that decrease was to be effected by reducing the number of troops for service abroad—a plan which he hoped would not be carried out—or by reducing the troops for the defence of these shores he would not discuss; but though many critics had urged reduced Army expenditure, no one had yet supplied a scheme by which that reduction could be effected." This last sentence is practically a direct challenge to Mr. Arnold-Forster, for the essential and guiding principle of his scheme is that it is a scheme by which a reduction in Army expenditure can be effected. Truly, this is a remarkable Ministry. Was Mr. Brodrick simply speak- ing out of the fulness of his heart, or has the conspicuous
Previous page
