HC Deb 19 March 1878 vol 238 cc1623-5

(16.) £150,000, Provisions, Forage, Fuel and Light, Transport, &c.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

wished to know from the First Lord of the Admiralty, how he explained the fact that whilst he claimed credit for savings in the Admiralty Votes by reason of diminished cost of provisions, the Army, on the contrary, found it necessary to ask for a large Supplementary Vote because of the increased price of provisions? He therefore wished to know where any saving had been effected?

MR. W. H. SMITH

Of stores.

SIR ANDREW LUSK

thought there must have been some misreport to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty. This Vote seemed to assume that there was increased cost in the price of provisions. Now, he would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether corn was any higher last year than the year before? So far as his experience went, corn was not dearer, but cheaper. Then it was said that beef was dearer. That was not so. Sugar was not dearer, tea was not dearer, coffee was not dearer, and he would like to know what articles of provisions were dearer than in the year previous? It was desirable that the Government should give some tangible reason why the Vote was larger.

COLONEL LOYD LINDSAY

said, the chief reason for this £150,000 was the additional cost with regard to broad stuffs, and also with regard to meat. The Estimate was made just previous to the rise, and hon. Members would remember that the rise in corn naturally caused a rise in bread. As hon. Members were aware, there had been a rise in the price of meat as well. There had also been an addition to the number of soldiers borne on the Establishment. The number had been fully up to the mark, and rather larger than in former years. These were the three material causes of this increase of £150,000.

SIR ANDREW LUSK

said, that was not a satisfactory answer at all. He did not question the additional expense of an additional number of soldiers, but this was put down to the additional cost of provisions; and he submitted again that the price of corn last year was not dearer than the year before; and, if hon. Gentlemen knew much about the price of beef, they would know that last year beef was cheaper than the year before, because American beef came into the market. He had no objection to the £150,000 for additional soldiers' rations; but that was not the reason. It was put down to high prices.

COLONEL STANLEY

said, that perhaps he ought not to rise in connection with this Vote; but, inasmuch as the Estimates last year were prepared partly under his direction, he was bound to exonerate his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Loyd Lindsay) from any charge. This he knew, that before he left the War Office a rise had taken place in the price of corn and in the price of rations abroad. At the same time there was, no doubt, considerable excess in the Estimates in the course of the year. The additions were partly owing to the growth of recruiting and other causes; and, therefore, he might frankly say that if anyone had to stand in the white sheet he must. He must say the Estimates were not perhaps as precise as they could have been.

Mr. BATES

wished to say that he sold corn at the commencement of last year at 45s., and at the end of the year he sold some thousands of tons at 65s.

MAJOR NOLAN

said, he had made inquiries, and he believed that the bread served to the soldier was made partly of seconds flour, and inferior to that which the soldier ordinarily purchased.

Vote agreed to.