Lords Sitting of 25 November 1867

ABYSSINIA.—QUESTION.
EARL GRANVILLE: I am extremely glad to see my noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) in his place again, and particularly as his presence induces me to preface, perhaps, a little more fully than I should do to any other person, the Question I am about to ask him. I hope I am not transgressing the recommendation made by the Committee of last year, that no Question should be put without public notice having previously been given upon the Paper. I have no wish whatever, in asking for explanations concerning the Abyssinian Papers, to raise any debate upon the important question to which those papers relate, or even upon the preliminary question
154
as to the reasons—apart from the celebrated "month of August" argument—why we should not have been asked three months ago to do what is now desired of us. What I contend is that some little information should be given, which I think is wanted, and which ought to be given with as little delay as possible. Your Lordships may perhaps think that the 500 pages presented last week are sufficient to satisfy any moderate appetite. Certainly, at first sight, they appear to include every scrap of paper which can be found in the India Office. I think it is even doubtful whether it was absolutely necessary to present to Parliament all the papers contained in the blue book. There is one correspondence I read which comprehends a letter from the Medical Department to the War Office and from the War Office to the India Office, an answer from the India Office to the War Office, and a rejoinder from the India Office to the War Office; all exclusively turning upon one point—whether a certain surgeon should take out his valet—an important question, which seems only to have been decided by an appeal to the Horse Guards, the gracious interposition of the Commander-in-Chief, and the amiable acquiescence of the surgeon himself. There is a very long statement interesting to genealogists, first given in extenso and then in abstract, of the claims of Sir Bridgtower, of No. 18, Via di Tritone, at Rome, to the throne of Abyssinia. It was a relief to me, after being kept in suspense for several pages, to find that the Secretary of State had decided not to support these claims by force of arms. This, however, must be admitted on behalf of the Government; it may be tiresome for one to read the offers of personal service and letters describing goods for sale; it may be dry to read directions as to the forms of vouchers and the marks on Government stores; it may seem a little ridiculous for the Executive to inform the Imperial Parliament that there will be bell-ropes, blacking, and a mangle for the expedition; but it is right that the Government should give evidence of their anxious endeavours to provide for the wants of the soldiers who are to be employed on this arduous expedition. I do not suspect them of having acted on the maxim of the old Parliamentary tactician—"The greater the blue book, the less likely it is to be read," nor do I complain of their giving us any information which may appear superfluous;

155
but I wish to get that which is necessary and of the greatest importance. Your Lordships will remember that on Tuesday last the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) answered a Question which, however, had not been put in this House, as to the incongruity of the declarations made by Lord Stanley on the 26th of July, and the announcement made in the Queen's Speech on the prorogation of Parliament on the 21st of August. The noble Earl recapitulated a portion of the speech of Lord Stanley, who, among other things, spoke of the difficulties of the expedition, and said—
"An expedition to rescue the captives must in any case be expensive; that it must inevitably be attended with heavy loss of life, by climate if not by military operations; that it was possible that it might even lead to a massacre of the prisoners, and that, for aught we knew, it might be wholly unnecessary, since their detention being apparently a pure act of caprice, the same caprice might at any moment lead to their being again released, without effort on our part."—[3 Hansard, clxxxix. 250.]
Later on the Foreign Secretary said—
"To obtain the release of these men by force is not an easy matter. … It would be madness to throw a British army into an unknown country, in a tropical climate, far from the sea, very far from its reserves and its supplies, without a full previous investigation as to the means of moving, feeding, and keeping them in health. That inquiry we look upon as an indispensable preliminary. … I do not think we should be called upon even now to give any pledge on the part of the Government as to an expedition, unless it is found to be practicable with only a reasonable expenditure of men and means."—[3 Hansard, clxxxix. 251–2.]
The noble Earl explained with reference to this, that such having been the doubts of Her Majesty's Government on the 26th of July, on the 13th of August information arrived which resolved those doubts, which opened to Ministers a reasonable prospect of success, and which induced them on the 19th to decide upon warlike measures, and to announce them on the 21st to a prorogued Parliament. Now, my Lords, I have carefully read the blue book, and I find no trace of such information. I find that on the 13th Her Majesty's Government received telegrams announcing what must have been pretty well anticipated, that the Indian Government could, if required, furnish in four months a well-equipped force of 12,000 men; but I find absolutely nothing which could have given the Government on the 13th of August that information which Lord Stanley so clearly stated only three or four weeks before was abso-
156
lutely necessary as to the physical and moral state of Abyssinia and its inhabitants. I see the same complaint is urged in The Times newspaper of this morning, and a suggestion is made of the bare possibility of the information referred to by the noble Earl being Sir Henry Durand's Memorandum. This, however, cannot be, as the document referred to was not received until September. The only information which can by any possibility be regarded as that to which the noble Earl referred, unless we have been entirely kept in the dark, is contained in some correspondence between the War Office and the Foreign Office set forth in pages 29 and 58 of the blue book. The Under Secretary for War writes to the Secretary of State for India as follows:—
"I am directed by Sir John Pakington to forward herewith a copy of a description of different routes in Abyssinia which has been compiled in the Topographical and Statistical Department of this office. These descriptions have been taken from the journies of travellers, and have been confined, in the first instance, to such as would give a general idea of the different lines of approach into the country which have been advocated."
The letter concludes with suggestions regarding other information which might be obtained if desired. On page 58 we have the reply from the War Office as follows:—
"I am directed by Sir John Pakington to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 20th instant, and, with reference to the suggestion contained in it, that copies of the 'Pamphlet on Routes in Abyssinia' may be of great use to the India Office at this moment, I am to state, for Lord Stanley's information, that copies have been already forwarded to that office."
I can hardly believe that this is the information referred to; but it is clear that the Memorandum or pamphlet, whether we have looked for it in vain or not, is evidently highly thought of at the War Office and the Foreign Office. It would be read with avidity by Members of both Houses, as it probably bears exactly upon the points upon which we are most anxious to be informed. If satisfactory, nothing would give Parliament more readiness to acquiesce cheerfully in the demands of Her Majesty's Government. It is clear that if omitted it must have been from mere inadvertence on the part of those compiling the papers. I have therefore only to ask the noble Earl whether there is any objection to have this valuable Memorandum distributed to the Members of your Lordships' House?
THE EARL OF DERBY: I think the noble Earl who has just sat down (Earl Granville) was a Member of the Committee of last year which recommended that

157
Questions likely to give rise to discussion should not be raised in this House without notice; and the only notice the noble Earl has given is contained in a note to the Earl of Malmesbury, who, however, is unable to attend here this evening. For my own part, reading the notice given by the noble Earl to my noble Friend, I do not think it was one indicating an intention to enter into the merits of the Abyssinian Expedition, or the discrepancies which the noble Earl thinks he has found between the statement made by my noble Relative on the 26th July and the subsequent determination of the Government. The noble Earl, in his note to Lord Malmesbury, merely asked him to be present this evening in the House, in order that he might have an opportunity of asking him to lay on the table the pamphlet containing a description of the routes in Abyssinia. Lord Malmesbury sent the note to me, and I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that there will be no difficulty as to the production of the document referred to, and that it will be laid on the table at the earliest possible moment. The noble Earl will excuse me if I now decline to enter into any discussion, when I asssure him that we shall be able to give full explanation at a proper time, and that the paper he asks for shall be laid on the table at the earliest possible moment.
EARL GRANVILLE: The recommendation of the Committee of last year was that Questions should not be put without notice, which were likely to lead to debate. It is clear that the Question I have put has not led to debate; I do not think it is likely to lead to debate; I think the information asked for is worth having, and the sooner we can have it the better.
THE EARL OF DERBY: The noble Earl will forgive me for reminding him that he opened his observations with the remark that my presence induced him to enter into a fuller explanation of the Question he proposed to raise than he had intended; and it is evident that he came down fully prepared with a number of papers to back his case. Seeing me here, in fact, he could not resist the temptation of putting forward a charge against the Government.

POSTAL COMMUNICATION WITH THE EAST—CONTRACT WITH THE PENINSULAR AND ORIENTAL STEAM COMPANY.—QUESTION.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYrose to ask a Question of the noble Duke the
158
Postmaster General with reference to the Contract between the Post Office and the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Company. As the correspondence on the subject had not been placed on the table, his remarks would be brief. He noticed, however, that the expense of the service to and from India had been largely increased, and he feared the Government had not given everybody likely to be interested in such a contract full and timely notice to enable them to make tenders. The 20th of September was hardly early enough to publish particulars of such a contract as the postal service to India to be carried out on the 1st of February. He wished to raise two points with respect to the new contract made with the Peninsular and Oriental Company—first, the duration of the contract; and secondly, the absence of any preparations for conducting the service by the Brindisi route. Was not twelve years a very much longer period than had ever yet been contracted for, without a break, and was not it an objectionable period? During those twelve years the hands of the Post Office authorities would be tied; and the arrangement was doubly objectionable when, as he understood it, the Company had contracted to carry the mails between Marseilles and Alexandria, and by no other route, while it was well known that the Brindisi route was thirty-six hours shorter than the Marseilles. He wished to know, first, whether any arrangement had been made with regard to the service, in conformity with the declaration made to Parliament; and secondly, whether the contract was to be made for the whole term of twelve years, and with a practical guarantee of 6 per cent for the whole of that period?
THE DUKE OF MONTROSEsaid, that although the Papers on the subject had not been laid on the table of their Lordships' House, they had been presented to the other House of Parliament, and that they contained a copy of the contract and of the correspondence between the Post Office and the Treasury. The noble Lord had said that sufficient time had not been given in the notices issued by the Government. It was possible that it might have been better had more time been given; but he was not aware that any objection had been offered on that account by any of those who were likely to have tendered for the performance of the service. Sufficient time had been given to allow the notices being sent to India, to allow of tenders being sent by any Companies who might have been de-

159
sirous of doing so. At one time it was even thought that it would be better to postpone the matter; but it was found that the Peninsular and Oriental Company demanded so high a price for the extension of their contract for six months, that it was thought better to issue the notices for tenders as they stood. The history of the private negotiation referred to by the noble Lord was this:—Although notice was given that tenders would be received for the performance of any portion or portions of the service, not a single Company tendered for such performance; and the Peninsular and Oriental Company, though they offered to do the whole, stated that they would not undertake any individual portion of the service apart from the remainder. The noble Lord regarded the sum which it was proposed to pay as immensely high, and he (the Duke of Montrose) therefore felt bound to allude to a few of the peculiarities from which that circumstance arose. In the first place, he might state—what was well known—that if the Government had not determined the contract, notice of its determination would have been given on the part of the Peninsular and Oriental Company, and therefore the Government thought fit to give that notice themselves, thinking the terms asked to be such that they could not continue the contract. The first tender of the Company—and at the same time no other tender was made—was for six years, at the rate of £500,000 per annum. He (the Duke of Montrose) thereon told the Directors that the offer was so high that he could not take it upon himself to recommend it to the Treasury, and it was very probable that the Treasury would not recommend its adoption to the House of Commons. He advised them, therefore, to re-consider their offer, and see if they could not make some reduction. He suggested also that possibly an extension of time might be an inducement; because there could be no doubt that if they were to have an extended service, and to increase the number of their vessels, they would naturally be anxious to have sufficient time to regain their extra expense. It resulted in this, that the Directors said that if the contract were given them for twelve years instead of six, they would undertake the service for £400,000 instead of £500,000. He thought their Lordships would see that this arrangement was, in reality, a very advantageous one. £500,000 for six years would amount to £3,000,000 of
160
money, and if the contract were entered into for that period it was very doubtful whether, at the end of that time, the Peninsular and Oriental Company would renew their contract at a lower rate; but £400,000 for twelve years was £4,800,000. By contracting for the longer term they would effect a saving in the twelve years of £1,200,000. Of course, it would remain for the House of Commons to say whether they preferred to pay a very large sum for a short contract, or whether they would pay a smaller sum and extend the time; but he could not himself see the probability of meeting at the end of six years with any more advantageous offer. The Peninsular and Oriental Company would not undertake the service again at anything like the rate at which it had hitherto been performed. The Company had to incur a largely increased expenditure for coals, which they stated had of late been £70,000 a year, and they had not only been deprived to a great extent of one source of revenue arising from the carriage of specie, but had lost a great deal through competition with the French boats. So much, indeed, had they been affected by these and other causes that they had not been able to declare a dividend during the last year. With great fairness they stated that their books were open to inspection, and he (the Duke of Montrose) had accordingly requested Mr. Scudamore, the Assistant Secretary of the Post Office, to examine them. The result of the inspection showed that the Company could not continue the service at the rate hitherto paid. The service, as it would in future be performed, was a greatly improved one. For instance, instead of a service to Calcutta four times a month the service would be in future every week, so that there would be fifty-two instead of forty-eight services yearly. The Bombay fortnightly service would be converted into a weekly one, so that the increase would be from twenty-four to fifty-two. They would also have an additional service to China. Moreover, by having the weekly service to Bombay they would obtain an accelerated service to Calcutta, for the railway though not available for passenger traffic might be made use of for the carriage of letters. The merchants and the public of this country had always expressed a strong desire for additional postal service to India; but still, if these improvements were not desired the Peninsular and Oriental Company had engaged to make a proportionate

161
reduction in the rate at which they would perform the service. The next point to which the noble Lord had adverted was the Brindisi route. He (the Duke of Montrose) did not take the same favourable view of that route as Colonel Tyler. The Brindisi route was attended with many disadvantages, though the completion of the tunnel would at some future time be a great argument in favour of its adoption. The harbour required great improvement; for passengers there was insufficient hotel accommodation, while the railway was only a single line for 500 miles, and every one connected with railway arrangements could testify that it was impossible to manage a large traffic on a single line with anything like regularity and punctuality. The noble Lord said that a saving of thirty-six hours would be effected by the adoption of the Brindisi route. By the arrangement, however, as now proposed—the vessels not calling at Malta, and going the direct route viâ Messina—there would be a saving of twenty-four hours. There was, moreover, a clause in the contract providing that in case the Government thought it desirable to change the Marseilles for the Brindisi route before the expiration of the twelve years, and any question arose between the Company and the Government, the matter should be referred to arbitration. Consequently, they had the power, if they thought it advisable to use it, of changing the route before the expiration of the contract. On the whole, he believed that the proposed arrangement with the Company might be regarded as satisfactory. He might say that it had never been the intention of the Post Office to throw the whole of this service into the hands of any foreign company. It was only intended, in the event of the service being cut up into different parts, to permit one portion of it to be taken up by a foreign company. There would be one additional service in the year to Australia.
House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Five o'clock.