HC Deb 27 May 1878 vol 240 cc805-12

(2.) £398,000, Transport of Native Indian troops.

MR. PARNELL

asked the Government for detailed information respecting the transports, particularly as regarded the terms which had been made with the owners. It was necessary the Committee should have these details, in order that they might see what kind of bargains the Government had made.

MR. W. H. SMITH

admitted that a great difference of opinion existed as to whether the Government might not have obtained the transports at a cheaper rate. His own impression was, that if they had announced to the world that it was their intention to bring several thousand troops from India, and that they would require about 50,000 tons of shipping, the expense would have been considerably more than what they had arranged for. In this matter the Indian Government had acted on behalf of the Imperial Government, and there was every reason to believe that they had done their best, that they had exercised every possible care as regarded economy. The exact amount of tonnage taken up was 46,000 tons, and that was a very large drain to make upon the resources of one port, or one district, in any part of Her Majesty's Dominions. Although the Vote was founded upon information received by telegraph from the Indian Government, to the best of his belief, it was a full and complete representation of the liability which had been incurred; and the first item included the Suez Canal dues, and other charges of that character.

MR. C. BECKETT-DENISON

was one of those who served on the Committee which sat after the Abyssinian Campaign, and a very large portion of the enormous expense which was incurred, in reference to the 14,000 men engaged in that war, was for transports. He was quite sure the Government were perfectly alert in this matter, and that they did not need to be cautioned. At the same time, he begged to point out that if these vessels were to be retained any length of time, it was quite certain the Vote they were called upon to pass would be inadequate. He should like to know for what term the ships had been engaged, and whether they had a running contract at so much per ton per month?

MR. MUNDELLA

also served on the Abyssinian Committee, and, anything more extravagant than it was proved the charges for transports had been, could not be imagined. But that Committee could do nothing. It was too late. The money had been spent, and although a great portion of it had been utterly wasted, yet the bills had to be paid. Some of the things which had been done were both foolish and ludicrous. A number of ships were paid for several times over in point of value, owing to the wasteful contracts which were entered into. It was said that in this instance the reason why the Government did not make known their intention to Parliament was, that they were afraid if they did so the rates of freight would be greatly increased. Now, on that point there was a great difference of opinion, and many men of business, out-of-doors, were of opinion if the Government had come forward with a frank statement, and had invited competition, there would have been no difficulty in obtaining much more favourable terms than those they had done. He scarcely liked to state all that was said on the subject out-of-doors; but a great many people believed as many rupees per ton per month had been paid as shillings ought to have been. Many owners would have been glad to have accepted shillings where they had now got rupees. One very serious item in the Abyssinian Account was the charge for demurrage, and he should like to know what arrangement the Government had made as to that matter in the present Expedition? He regretted that the First Lord of the Admiralty had not placed full particulars of the contracts before the Committee, instead of contenting himself with saying that he had nothing but telegraphic information. If any ordinary house of business had entered into contracts of this nature, they would have had the full particulars in their hands before this time, and he was at a loss to know why the Government could not do what an ordinary house of business would have done. The Government had full command of the telegraph, and the right hon. Gentleman might, and ought to, have come down to the Committee, and laid before them a full account of the terms upon which these contracts had been entered into. The Conservative Party were in power during the Abyssinian Expedition, and they came down to the House and stated, over and over again, that from £2,000,000 to £2,500,000, would be the entire cost, yet they all knew that finally the account amounted to £9,000,000. Now, what he wished to guard against was the repetition of anything of the kind in this case, in order that the interests of the taxpayers might be protected. He made no objection to the Vote, because it was for the Indian troops; but he desired more information regarding it, solely in the interest of the taxpayers. He knew economy was out of fashion in this House, and people who advocated it were almost ashamed to use the word. It was looked upon as everything which was disagreeable; but, when they had trade decreasing and pauperism increasing, it was time they turned their thoughts in the direction of economy, because this was a very large sum for such a small blaze of fireworks from the Prime Minister. If it should happen that the Government had to change sides, do not let them hereafter come down and complain of heavy taxation. In his opinion, the expenditure which had already been incurred was most lavish, and they were apparently about to do the same as they did in the Abyssinian War, where the interests of the many were sacrificed to the interests of the few. Fixing the sum at £398,000 seemed very much like the 1s. 11¾d. which they were in the habit of seeing in the windows of drapers' shops. The First Lord of the Admiralty was a thorough man of business, and let him check the Indian Government, and get from them the full particulars of what they had done, in order that it might be seen whether they had gone about their work in a businesslike manner.

SIR HENRY HAVELOCK

said, as far as he could learn from the Indian prints, these vessels had been taken up on monthly pay for four months from the 17th of April; but the pay of troops was taken for 12 months, and that would seem to imply that they were to be kept from India for that time. If, on the other hand, they were only to be kept four months, then they would be in the middle of the monsoon, when it would be impossible for these ships to make the passage.

MR. D. JENKINS

considered these ships had been taken at 50 per cent more than they might have been obtained for. Some of the sailing ships were to receive 10 to 11 rupees per ton per month, and the steamers from 20 to 22 rupees. Why had sailing ships been engaged at all? The work on board of them was performed slowly, and it could be done in half the time on board the steamers. At the present moment there was a large amount of unemployed steam tonnage in India, and, if this had been taken up, the troops could have been landed in Malta within 14 days, instead of the voyage occupying three weeks as it did with the sailing vessels. He maintained that the manner in which these transports had been engaged showed an utter absence of business knowledge.

MR. MAC IVER

thought there would not be the least difficulty in showing that the Government had made the best bargain they could. While it was perfectly true that there was a great deal of unemployed tonnage in India, it was not true that tonnage was in excess at Bombay. No doubt, the Government could have got vessels in Calcutta and Madras from 10 to 11 rupees per ton per month, but that would have involved great delay; and, in order to carry out their project, the Government were compelled to accept the freights they could get in Bombay. The whole success of the thing depended upon its being done there and then, and he did not consider the Government had paid an unreasonable price.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, that the remarks which had been made as to the extent of the profits reaped by Indian shipowners were well illustrated by a telegram which was sent from Bombay to Calcutta during the Abyssinian War—"Great panic here upon a false report of peace." He believed that there was a great deal of unemployed tonnage in India. If the Government had waited and had sent to Calcutta for steamers, they would have obtained transport for half the price. Instead of that, the Government had gone to a large expense in order to enable the Prime Minister to do the thing in a fireworky, brilliant manner.

LORD ELCHO

observed, that there was one point to which he wished to call attention, as it did not appear to have been noticed before. He should like to know whether, when the occasion presented itself, the ships of the Royal Navy might not be utilized for the purposes of transport? In the Crimean War, the French Navy had the duty of conveying the French troops. He heard also, from General Baker, that one of the Turkish frigates had been used as a transport. It conveyed 5,000 men from one place to another, a journey occupying one day and a-half. Perhaps, in the present case, the Navy might be more utilized.

MR. NORWOOD

observed, that it was, no doubt, perfectly legitimate, under certain circumstances, to send Indian troops to Malta; but the question was, whether the Government had not in this instance paid too much for their transport? That was an important point in its bearing on the future employment of these troops. If the transport had been arranged by gentlemen accustomed to the tonnage market, probably 30 per cent, or, perhaps, one-half of the expense, might have been saved. As the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Mac Iver) had said, although there might not have been many ships in Bombay harbour, there was a large excess in Calcutta. Between the two places was only a few days' voyage; and if the Government had inquired in the Calcutta market, they might have procured three times the quantity of shipping obtainable in Bombay, and at about half the rates they had given. The House needed such information as no Minister at present seemed able to give on these points, Although the employment of the Indian troops was, in his opinion, not only legitimate but salutary, yet he thought the arrangements for transporting them night have been effected at half the sums expended in the present case. As the House was now asked to vote so large an amount for the transport, it might give an impression, not only in the House but in the country, that the cost of conveying the Indian troops was so heavy as to make their employment in large numbers practically impossible, which, in his opinion, was erroneous.

MR. W. H. SMITH

expressed his willingness to receive suggestions on votes of this character from hon. Members on both sides of the House. He was ready to admit that the expenditure of the Indian Government in these natters had suggested to Her Majesty's Government the necessity of watching their proceedings. All he could say was that, so far as he was concerned, he would take care to watch its expenditure most narrowly in order to avoid, if possible, the extravagance that marked the Abyssinian Expedition. He was, however, bound to point out that, although the demand to get ships from Calcutta might possibly have been made, the amount of saving would be much less than that suggested by the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood). The actual charge for freight was £200,000, but the rest of the charge was made up of various items; £55,000 alone out of £256,000 was for pilotage, toll dues, including the Suez Canal charges, and other matters. It was true there was not at present before the House information on which they could rely; but he might say that 22 rupees had been paid for one ship. Until he knew the amount accurately, he must decline to give further information, though there were cases in which steamers and sailing vessels had been taken at 9 or 10 rupees per ton per month. The period which the charge of £200,000 represented was one of three or four months; in some cases it was for a slightly less in others for a slightly longer, period. Before that period had expired, there would be time to consider whether the ships should continue to be employed or be discharged. His noble Friend the Member for Haddington (Lord Elcho) had spoke of the expediency of employing the ships of the Royal Navy for the purposes of transport. He would undertake to say that every economy would be practised; but if his noble Friend were as well acquainted as he was with the present condition of Her Majesty's Navy, he would know well that a ship of war as now constructed was hardly capable of taking on board any addition to its proper complement of men. No doubt, it was possible on an emergency for a ship belonging to the Turkish Navy to take on board 3,000 to 5,000 men for a day and a night. They might be taken on board in that way for a short time; but when the period was extended to three weeks, it would be necessary to make proper provision for the men, and he was afraid that the class of ships of which Her Majesty's Navy now consisted could not be largely used for the purposes of transport. When he was in a position to do so, he would lay before the House all information with regard to the liability which the Indian Government had incurred with reference to the movement of the Indian troops and to the contracts which had been entered into with shipowners for their conveyance.

MR. MUNDELLA

would be perfectly willing to accept the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that full information should be given on condition that at as early a period as possible the particulars of all contracts should be laid before the House. A case had been brought to his notice in which its Bombay agent telegraphed to an English house that the Government wanted transport. They wrote him to accept 18s. per month, but shortly afterwards he telegraphed back that he had got 20 rupees per month, or about double the amount he was instructed to take. If such things took place—and he had the information on the best authority—it was right that full particulars of the contracts should be laid on the Table of the House. He did not accuse the right hon. Gentleman of any extravagance; but they knew what took place in India—and especially in Bombay—at the time of the Abyssinian War. The evil traditions with reference to expenditure that hung about Bombay made it more than ever necessary to watch the expenditure.

MR. GOSCHEN

wished to express his belief, that if the Government showed no reticence with regard to the contracts, there would be no disposition to oppose the Vote.

Vote agreed to.