HC Deb 05 June 1860 vol 158 cc2051-61
MR. LINDSAY

said, he rose to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the organization and management of those branches of the Admiralty, War Office, India Office, and Emigration Board, by which the business of transporting, by means of shipping, troops, convicts, emigrants, materials of war, stores, and any other similar services, is now performed, with a view of adopting some uniform system by which such services may be economically and efficiently conducted, under the authority of one consolidated and responsible department. As he had been given to understand the Government intended to make no opposition to the Motion, he would, content himself with stating a few facts. At present they had no Department directly responsible to that House for the transport of troops and stores. Such was not formerly the case, for even so far back as 1690, when it was found necessary to send a large force of troops to Ireland, months passed over before the Navy Board could get shps, and a Transport Board was formed which remedied the difficulty. During the late war with France from 1790 to 1816, a similar Board existed, which very satisfactorily and efficiently discharged the duties. In 1816 that Board was abolished, and the business of conducting this service had since then been vested in various Departments. Thus the Admiralty undertook the transport of troops and stores to our various possessions, with the exception of India; the East India Department undertook the transport of the troops which were required in India; and the Admiralty and the Emigration Commissioners were responsible for the transport of emigrants and persons employed by the Government. The various Departments of the Government bid in the market for ships against each other, and the consequence was that the shipowners, believing that a larger amount of tonnage was required than was really the ease, demanded increased prices, and very often obtained them. Even in times of peace the loss in that way was very great, but in times of war the loss was still more considerable. When they first entered into the war with Russia there was no responsible Board to conduct the transport service of the country. He need not remind the House of the eon-sequences which ensued. During the first year of the war the transport of troops and stores cost £5,000,000, and not a less sum than £15,000,000 was expended on the same service during the war. When the war broke out, the Duke of Newcastle, the then Secretary of State for War, proposed to organize a Transport Board and to obtain the assistance of the Emigration Commissioners, who had had great experience in transporting to distant countries large numbers of passengers. The measure was approved, but a difference of opinion arose between the noble Duke and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle, who then filled the office of First Lord of the Admiralty, each deeming that the Minister holding his particular office was the proper person to be at the head of the Board. In 1854 the Transport Board was organized, but only as a temporary arrangement. He need not recall to the House the confusion and losses which occurred in the transport service previous to the formation of that Board, nor inflict pain by reminding them of soldiers left to die in the Crimea for want of food and clothes, which had not only been bought but actually sent out. It would be sufficient to state that while the service was conducted by the Admiralty the sailing ships cost £1 7s. 7d. per ton, and when the Board came into operation the price fell to 15s. 10d. per ton, although it was right to add that ships were not in such great demand the second year as they were the first. Still it showed what economy might be effected under an improved system of management. Ships were sometimes engaged by the gross tonnage, and at other times by the net tonnage. Now for the want of a Board of Superintendence familiar with the facts, there was a great loss sustained by engaging ships upon the one kind of tonnage rather than upon the other. In reference to the transport of troops, ships were engaged sometimes according to the rate per head of each man on board, and at other times they were engaged by the run. The latter mode was generally adopted in regard to the transport of convicts. If a Transport Board were considered necessary before, it became still more necessary now when the Indian army was about to be placed under the superintendence of the Minister at War—and when large numbers of European troops would be frequently forwarded to India. Military men could say whether it was for the benefit of the army generally that troops should remain so long a period abroad. If it were considered to be for the interest of the country that they should be oftener relieved from foreign duty, then it was manifestly desirable that there should be some organized system of transport under which they could be moved about with as little expense to the country as possible. He was informed that every soldier landed from this country in India cost £100. The Secretary of the Emigration Board stated that the cost of sending troops to India on an average of five years, from 1852 and 1857, was £14 10s. for each man's passage outwards, including everything that a soldier required; and £32 8s. home wards, making altogether £46 18s. Mr. Wood, who had filled the office of private secretary to Lord Hardinge, and was for some time one of the Emigration Commissioners, had published a pamphlet re- cently, in which he showed that under a good organized system troops could be sent out to and brought back from India at a cost of £30 per head. Now our trade with India had materially altered of late years. There was a large quantity of what was called dead weight sent to and from India—iron for railways going out, and saltpetre and sugar coming home. A ship filled her lower hold with those materials, and being unable to take a full cargo between decks, she was able to take out troops at a small cost. Those ships could be engaged at a low rate, provided the contract was made with the owner out and home. He did not think, therefore, that Mr. Wood had made too low an estimate when he said that troops could be sent out and brought home at £30 per head. In a pamphlet recently published by Mr. Kirwan in Calcutta, that gentleman, who had been engaged for a period of nine years in connection with the transport of troops to and from India, stated from his experience that there was much suffering experienced by the troops and a great loss of the public money from the want of a properly organized system of transport service. He (Mr. Lindsay) therefore felt that a necessity existed for establishing a new branch of the public service, which should have for its duties the superintendence of all details connected with the embarkation and disembarkation of troops, to whatever part of the globe they might be; about to proceed. In case of war the whole energies of the Admiralty were required to fit out a fleet, and to man and provision ships. But at the very moment that the Admiralty were thus engaged orders came to them from the War Office to forward troops to different points, and at the same time other departments of the Government required them to execute their orders. It was impossible for the Admiralty to perform such a variety of work. His object in moving for a Committee was to organize one great Board, or one department of the Government, which should be directly responsible to the House for the conveyance of all our troops, whether to India or any other possession, and for the conveyance of all stores, munitions of war, and whatever else the Government might require to be sent there. Whether the representative of that Board in Parliament should be the Secretary of State for War or the First Lord of the Admiralty he would offer no opinion. That was a question for the Cabinet to decide. If the Committee were granted, he had no desire to rake up old matters before it; he proposed simply to call before the Committee the heads of the different Departments—such as the East India House, the Admiralty, and the Emigration Board, and to obtain from them their opinions as to the best means of organizing such a system as would conduct the transport service to the greatest advantage to the country and to the troops themselves, There was now a much greater demand in this country for labour than formerly, and the Emigration Board was consequently not so much required as in past years. Indeed, the functions of the Emigration Board had nearly ceased for some time past. But all their staff and machinery being complete that Board might be reorganized under the title of the Transport Board, or any other name, and made most efficient for the carrying out of the transport service. In conjunction with the excellent chairman and secretary of that Board, the co-operation of some experienced military and naval officers might be secured, in order to constitute a most efficient Board.

SIR MICHAEL SEYMOUR

seconded the Motion.

Motion made, and Question proposed,— That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the organization and management of those branches of the Admiralty, War Office, India Office, and Emigration Board, by which the business of transporting, by means of shipping, Troops, Convicts, Emigrants, Materials of War, Stores, and any other similar services, is now performed, with a view of adopting some uniform system by which such services may be economically and efficiently conducted, under the authority of one consolidated and responsible Department.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

said, it was not his intention to oppose the Motion of his hon. Friend. He might say, on the part of his right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for India, as well as on the part of the Admiralty, that they would be glad that there should be an inquiry into the matters which had been adverted to in the speech of the hon. Gentleman. But after giving to the subject a good deal of consideration, he (Lord C. Paget) was afraid it would be found to present more difficulties than his hon. Friend imagined. He understood his hon. Friend to propose that the Emigration Commissioners should be formed into a perfectly independent board, and that whenever the War Office required any transports, either for the passage of troops or carrying provisions, or any warlike stores, they should apply to those Emigration Commissioners, with a view to having their arrangements carried out, and that the Secretary of State for India should do the same with regard to the whole Indian army. There was no doubt that the Board, however constituted, would have to perform very important functions, and he was not quite certain that it would not lead into one of the inconveniences which it was the great desire of his right hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham) to get rid of when he abolished the Navy Board in 1835,—namely, the inconvenience of two independent Boards conducting services of the same nature. He was not prepared, however, to say that arrangements might not be made by which many difficulties might be overcome; but it was a very important point of consideration that the transport service was not wholly composed of merchant ships, but a considerable part of the transport was undertaken by vessels of war. It was manifest that it would be highly inconvenient that the Admiralty should give up the charge of those vessels which were strictly vessels of war, and pace them in the hands of the Emigration Commissioners. On the other hand lie was perfectly willing to admit that an efficient Transport Board would be a matter of the greatest importance, particularly at any future time when they might be engaged in serious operations. The Admiralty, no doubt, would be very glad to be relieved of the transport business, but he was bound to say that he had not heard of any great faults in the present system, neither did he see how a Transport Service could work in war time except under the control of the Admiralty. The Admiralty were in almost daily communication with the Horse Guards and the India house concerning the transport of troops, but he was not aware that any complaints had been made of want of attention on the part of the Admiralty. Having stated that it was not the intention of the Government to oppose the scheme, he had only to suggest to his hon. Friend that he should leave out all the words after the word "performed" to the end of the Motion. He did not think it would be wise, under the present circumstances of the case, and before the matter was inquired into, that the Government or the public, as it were, should pledge themselves to the views of his hon. Friend—as they would do by the words, "with a view of adopting some uniform System by which such services may be economically and efficiently conducted, under the authority of one consolidated and responsible department." He would submit to his hon. Friend that instead of, as it were, adopting that principle, it would be better to leave it to the Committee to inquire into the subject and to report their opinion unfettered.

MR. H. BAILLIE

said, he was glad to find that the noble Lord did not feel himself called upon to oppose the Motion, which he (Mr. Baillie) considered to be one of greater importance than the noble Lord seemed to suppose. The noble Lord discussed the question rather as one in which the Admiralty was concerned, but he would find that a larger sum would be required for the transport service than he supposed, if, as was stated, the Government were about to maintain a Royal army of 80,000 men in India. Heretofore the transport service had been conducted altogether by the East India Company, but henceforward those duties should be performed by the Government. He offered no opinion as to whether a Board should be established for the purpose, but the service was certainly of sufficient importance to be controlled by a separate department. If India was in future to absorb 80,000 men, and reliefs took place every ten years, 8,000 men must be sent out every year; and, if a deduction of 10 per cent were made for loss of life by the climate, a further reinforcement of 8,000 must be provided. Thus there would be a transport service to India of 16,000 men every year That was exclusive of the service to be performed in bringing men home. The transport of men to and from the Colonies was also to be considered; so that on the whole there was a very important and extensive field of inquiry for the Committee.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, he concurred with the noble and gallant Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty that the latter part of the Motion to some extent prejudged the principle upon which the transport service ought to be conducted, and ought therefore to be omitted. Remembering the ridiculously low estimate formed by a Cabinet Minister of the requirements of the transport service during the Crimean War, he thought it would be a great mistake to sever this department from the Board of Admiralty. It was impossible, however, to overrate the importance of the whole question. The hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House assumed that they were in future to maintain 80,000 troops of the Line in India, but he (Sir H. Willoughby) apprehended that the number of men to be so maintained was a question which was yet to be decided. The proposal, however, to maintain in India a Royal army of 80,000 men would necessitate the outlay of half a million of money on the expenses of transport, while eight regiments would have to be kept constantly at sea, and might as well not be in existence. The question whether they could hold India by an army of soldiers of the Line from this country was a very doubtful one. In the latest collection of the Duke of Wellington's despatches and correspondence a letter written by him when Colonel Wellesley was published, in which he distinctly expressed his opinion that it was impossible to hold India by a Royal army, both on the ground of expense and likewise of the loss of life.

MR. MARSH

said, he desired to bear testimony to the excellent arrangements of the Emigration Commissioners, by which perfect satisfaction had been given to the Colonies. He was convinced that, in addition to their other duties, they would be competent to undertake the control of the transport service.

COLONEL HERBERT

said, he wished to express his satisfaction that the noble and gallant Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty had given the consent of the Government to the appointment of the Committee, because he believed the subject was one of the greatest importance. He believed that great economy would result from the adoption of the system suggested by the hon. Member for Sunderland. The proposal to create an independent Board might, be worthy of consideration, but it would be quite necessary that whatever bands authority was reposed in should be thoroughly subordinate to the War Minister. He believed that a medical officer might be advantageously added to the Board.

MR. BENTINCK

said, there was one point which had not been adverted to, and to which he wished to call the attention of his noble and gallant Friend opposite. It had always appeared to him (Mr. Bentinck) that the whole transport system had been on a bad footing, and that they ought, except in cases of extreme emergency, never to employ transports at all. Troops were never conveyed with so much comfort in transports as in troop ships. Besides which, there was the additional advantage in maintaining a proper fleet of troop ships—that we would thereby have a large body of regular seamen available for naval purposes in time of war. What he would suggest was that, if possible, the troops should always be conveyed in troop ships, under the supervision of the Admiralty. The only objection that he had heard raised to this scheme was the additional expense which it would involve; but the additional expense would be small, and would be amply compensated for by the more efficient and rapid conveyance of the troops.

COLONEL LINDSAY

said, he hoped the Committee would be able to arrange some cheap and well organized system of transport, which would admit of troops being relieved after shorter periods of service both in India and the Colonies. The term recommended by the Commissioners for keeping British soldiers in India was twelve years, but that period had since been modified to ten years, and that period was, he believed, too long, and ought to be reduced to six or seven years. It had been calculated that if a regiment went to India, and were left unrecruited by draughts from home, by the time their period of service had expired the regiment would have nearly disappeared. It was the first year which told most severely upon the raw recruits, and it therefore became desirable to consider whether it would not be better to send out regiments strong to India, only to leave them there a short time, and not to send out any draughts to reinforce them. He believed that the organization and efficiency of the army were involved in this question of reliefs.

SIR CHARLES NAPIER

said, he was firmly of opinion that it would be much better to institute a new Transport Board than to have anything to do with the Board of Admiralty. That Board had a great deal too much to do at the present time, and if anything else were added to their duties they would perform them a great deal worse than they were in the habit of doing.

SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE

said, the facts elicited by the Committee on the Transport of Troops to India, of which he had been a member, convinced him that it was highly important they should look to the overland route as the most profitable means for landing their troops in India. Having had something to do himself with the transport of troops to India, his expe- rience taught him that the greatest loss of life occurred immediately after the arrival of the troops in India; between the time of their disembarkation and when they reached their final destination. This might be avoided by conveying the troops, directly after disembarking, across the belt of country prejudicial to Europeans into a better climate. They might send a certain number every year from the garrisons in the Mediterranean across the Isthmus of Suez, and by the Red Sea to Bombay, from which place they might in a few hours be conveyed by rail to parts of India which were equal in point of salubrity to the south of Italy. At the same time it would be absolutely necessary at all times to take a certain number of men round by the Cape, and he believed that for young men, and especially those of them who had not led a very steady life in this country, three months on board ship was as good a preparation as could be for duty in India. On their arrival in India they might at once be conveyed from the place of debarkation. He agreed with the lion, and gallant Admiral (Admiral Napier) that the Admiralty had already too much to do. No mortals could perform the duties which wore imposed on the gentlemen of that Board. He, therefore, thought it would be an advantage if the Transport Board were revived. During the Crimean war it promised to be one of the most useful establishments that period gave rise to.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, he desired to express the satisfaction with which he had heard the determination of Her Majesty's Government to grant the Committee moved for by his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland. He did not think that the time for entering into details which would become subject matter of inquiry by the Committee. The only question now before the House was, whether the subject did not present ample grounds for inquiry by a Committee. Whatever arrangement might be made with regard to the army of India, no doubt the supply of that army would render it necessary to adopt the most economic and effective transport. He was glad the attention of his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland had been called to the pamphlet published by Mr. Wood. From Mr. Wood's experience as an Emigration Commissioner, no one could be more competent than he was to deal with the subject. His hon. Friend had quoted Mr. Wood's statement, that by contracting for the double passage, for £25 per man, sol- diers might be carried to India and back; but he had omitted to read the important statement that the present cost of conveying them was £15 per man to India, and £35 back. It was, therefore, obvious, that on the mere ground of economy, if they could arrange a better system of transport they ought to do so. But he confessed that even the cogent ground of economy was not to his mind the strongest reason for inquiry into this matter. His hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Lindsay) had alluded to another, of even more importance than economy, namely, the consideration whether an improved system of transport might not enable us to adopt an improved system of relief for our troops in India and the Colonies. Nothing could be more inconvenient to the service, and more dispiriting to the men, than to keep them in India and the Colonies beyond the time which had been stated to them when they enlisted. As his hon. Friend had suggested, under an improved system of transport they might be able to send out troops to India in battalions, and avoid the sending of draughts.

MR. LINDSAY

said, he thought his Motion, perhaps, asked for a little too much in asking the Committee to adopt one uniform system. It might by some possibility happen that the Committee might think the present system of transport the best that could be adopted. He thought the object of the Motion would be gained and the hands of the Committee left unfettered if the Motion concluded at the word "performed." He believed the great strength of the service lay in the mercantile marine. The maintenance of an efficient fleet of troop-ships would cost the nation an infinitely larger sum than the employment of transport ships.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, he would suggest that the Motion should stop at the word "conducted."

Motion agreed to.

Select Committee appointed, To inquire into the organization and management of those branches of the Admiralty, War Office, India Office, and Emigration Board, by which the business of transporting, by means of shipping, Troops, Convicts, Emigrants, Materials of War, Stores, and any other similar services, is now performed.