NAVY ESTIMATES, 1900–1901. (Hansard, 9 March 1900)

§ MR. WARNER (Staffordshire, Lichfield)
I desire to call attention to the question which was raised by the right hon. Baronet the Member for North-east Manchester,^* whether it is true that two of the transports to South Africa had been supplied by the Admiralty with beef pickled in 1893. I think the accusation that seven-year-old beef was supplied is a very serious matter, and what I should like to have explained is what punishment has been inflicted upon the people who willingly and openly supply this beef? Some officer must have been responsible for having sent this beef to the victualling yard. It was supplied by the Admiralty, and not by the contractors for the transports. As it is a very serious matter that this state of things should exist, I want to see that care will be taken that it shall not happen again, and that those responsible for it should suffer to some extent.

§ SIR CHARLES CAMERON (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
said he thought if it was necessary to take stringent precautions with regard to the inspection of the food supplied to the mercantile marine, it was equally necessary to prevent the Admiralty re-issuing old provisions of that kind. He would like to know how it was that this 1893 beef escaped the inspection.

§ *THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MACARTNEY,) Antrim, S.
With regard to this particular beef of 1893 no complaints have previously been made with regard to it. It was landed from H.M.S. Raleigh, and after it had been surveyed by the officers of the victualling yard it was sent to the transport. There were only two con- ^*See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxix., page 1414. 515 demnations in regard to this beef during the voyage of the transport. The remainder of the salt beef supply was landed at the Cape, and it has been surveyed by the Board of Naval officers there, who have passed it as satisfactory. I quite agree that we should take every care to see that no beef of an undesirable character should be issued to the Navy or to the transports. In this case, however, every regulation was carefully attended to, and in my judgment no officer is at fault in the slightest degree, and I do not think there is any necessity that any special order or direction should be issued in connection with the matter. I will look very carefully into the whole of this matter, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is not the slightest reason to suppose that there has been any dereliction of duty on the part of anyone connected with the victualling yard. With regard to this question, however, I may tell the hon. Member opposite that it is not at all an unusual thing for seven years old salt beef to be in good condition, but the whole question of salt beef rations is now under the consideration of the Admiralty with a view to considering whether measures should not be taken to diminish the amount in the future.

§ MR. WARNER
Does beef that is seven years old require a Board or an officer to condemn it before its reissue can be prevented?

§ *MR. MACARTNEY
Yes, a survey. I have myself eaten salt beef which was a good deal older than that.

§ MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.)
Shall I be in order in asking the First Lord of the Admiralty upon this Vote whether his Department will consider the question of sending a ship from time to time to protect our fisheries?

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND proceeded
I must press the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty to answer my question, and unless I get a satisfactory answer or some encouragement I shall feel it my duty to 517 take a division against this Vote. The sums of money asked for here are very considerable in respect to Half Pay and Retired Pay, and I take it that it is not an unreasonable thing that we should get some return for this expenditure in the shape of the presence of a warship to protect our fisheries. I do not wish to delay the progress of these Votes, but I think I am entitled to some sort of a reply.

§ *MR. SPEAKER
If the hon. Member is going to discuss Retired Pay, he is in order; otherwise not.

§ MR. WILLIAM REDMOND
I am giving as a reason why we should pay this money that in return for it we should have a warship sent to protect our fisheries.

§ *MR. SPEAKER
Upon those lines the hon. Member might discuss any subject he pleases.

§ MR. WILLIAM REDMOND
If the right hon. Gentleman does not think it of sufficient importance to give me a reply—

§ *MR. SPEAKER
Order, order! I should have to prevent the right hon. Gentleman from giving such an answer, because he would be out of order in dealing with fisheries.