§ EARL CARRINGTONMy Lords, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War—(1) What was the contract price per lb. in the Government contract with the South African Supply and Cold Storage Company, who made a million profit on the transaction; (2) What is the contract price under the present arrangement with Messrs. Bergl and Company; (3) Was the undertaking 813 given in writing by the contractors that "Colonial meat should as far as possible be imported into South Africa" in the original contract with Mr. Bergl, or was it inserted after the protests of Messrs. Seddon and See.
* THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord RAGLAN)My Lords, the noble Earl is, no doubt, aware that it is not usual to give the prices of these contracts, but on this occasion I am able to give the information. The price of the new contract made by Messrs. Bergl and Company is for fresh meat—that is to say live meat—about 8½d. per lb., and for frozen meat about 5½d per lb., which is about 1½d. per lb. cheaper than the former contract of the Cold Storage Company. I have no information as to the profits made by the Cold Storage Company, but I would point out to the noble Earl that they have a large civilian business in addition to their contracts for the Army. With regard to the third question, the actual undertaking was not signed until after the receipt of the telegrams from Mr. Seddon and Mr. See, but a distinct and definite undertaking had been given in the presence of witnesses more than a fortnight before.
§ EARL CARRINGTONI am very much obliged to the noble Lord for the information he has been good enough to give me on this subject, which is one of great public interest. I would point out that the Cold Storage Company made a profit of a million, and a return of 140 per cent. on their money. Their contract was, I understand, 10d. per lb. for fresh meat?
§ EARL CARRINGTONTenpence per lb. seems to me an enormous contract price for meat. Noble Lords probably know that the primest cut of the primest meat of this country—say the baron of beef supplied at the Royal Table at Winsor Castle—would not come to more than 11d. per lb.
* LORD RAGLANI wish to correct a misapprehension. The contract price is not only for the supply of the meat; it includes also its distribution. When 814 the former contracts were made the work of distribution in South Africa was more difficult than now.
§ EARL CARRINGTONI do not complain of the noble Lord interrupting me. Information by interruption is quite as valuable as in any other form. It is well known that frozen meat can be supplied at Cape Town from Australia and New Zealand—a supply ten times more than would be required to feed a quarter of a million of troops—at from 3½d. to 4½d. per lb. The noble Lord defended the contract on account of the cost of distribution. If the railways in South Africa were like, say, the Great Northern Railway here, who charge a prohibitive tariff which prevents farmers being able to sell their meat at a profit in London, I should say nothing, but noble Lords should remember that the South African railway is a miserable single line. I am informed, on good authority, that there was no expense whatever, either in sending men, amnunition, meat, or hospital comforts; and, therefore, I respectfully submit that the argument of the noble Lord breaks down. I wish it to be distinctly understood that, in bringing this matter before the House, I am not advocating any stinting of the brave troops who, for the last two and a half years have been fighting the battles of their country in South Africa. There is a great division of opinion on the Liberal side of the House as to the origin and conduct of the war, but on one thing we are all agreed—every responsible member of the Liberal Party is agreed—namely, that everything possible should be done in the interests of the soldiers at the front. I have brought the matter forward, in order to show that the original contract must have been entered into in a slipshod manner when the company were able to make a million sterling profit.
We have been told by Ministers in another place that there is to be a saving of £700,000 on the fresh contract. It is pleasant to hear this, though it seems to me to be a curious contract. We are told that the lowest tender was that of Mr. Bergl, who, in tendering, said he did so on behalf of a syndicate, who wanted to form a company. Naturally, some backers were required. The sum of £200,000 was deposited and a com- 815 pany with a capital of £650,000 formed, and the company has been registered, not in London, but in Pretoria. Mr. Bergl is a gentleman of Polish and Hebrew nationality, and, as Lord Stanley admitted in another place last week, was fined £10 for putting a false label and description on meat exposed for sale, the magistrate making some very strong remarks on the transaction. I am told, and the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong, that the principal backers behind Mr. Bergl are gentlemen called Houlder, the proprietors of the Houlder Line of steamers, and Burt, Potter, and Hughes of the Federal Line, trading direct with Argentina. Behind these backers, I believe it is an open secret in the City, are certain gentlemen named, Samuel Weil, Benjamin Weil, David Harris, Carl Meyer, Carl Hanan, John Stroyal. Isaac Lewis, Agar Beit—better known, I believe, as Alfred Beit—and Solly Joel, "Solly" being, I am informed, an abbreviation for Solomon. Lord Stanley, when asked a Question in another place, said he was not aware whether Mr. Bergl had resold his entire interest to Messrs. Wernher, Beit, Leiss, and Marks for £100,000. But in today's Daily Chronicle there is a statement that in a paper called Cold Storage, Messrs. Wernher, Beit & Co. state that they are not interested in any meat contract. So that if Mr. Agar Beit is interested in this contract he must be interested solely as a private individual.
So that, as the matter stands now, the Argentine Shipping Companies are the carriers, Solly Joel and Company are the distributors, and Bergl and Company are the providers. No wonder, therefore, we have a protest from Australia and New Zealand, from which countries meat can be supplied at Cape Town at the identical cost of meat from Argentine, owing to the difference in the cost for coal. I think there is something in the uneasiness that is felt in Australia and New Zealand as to their meat—their staple product—being rather unfairly treated, and an undue preference given to Argentine meat; and it seems to me that the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for War was rather drawing the long bow when he described this syndicate, which certainly does not sug- 816 gest Antipodean or Australian names, as one having close and intimate relations with Australia and New Zealand. Mr. Bergl, no doubt, has a very warm corner in his heart for Australian meat, because he got into trouble by describing meat which was not New Zealand as "prime Canterbury lamb." I think we may fairly say that there is some justification for the strong and spirited protests of Mr. See and Mr. Seddon, the Prime Ministers of New South Wales and New Zealand. Mr. Seddon, in the course of a very patriotic speech at Wellington on February 4th of this year, when the last contingent was being despatched to South Africa, referred to the grave injustice done to Australia and New Zealand by the taking of a large quantity of meat from Argentine for the use of the troops in South Africa. He went on to say—
This action had caused widespread irritation, and the feeling about it was becoming intensely bitter. Every Chamber of Commerce had passed resolutions against this action. He was informed that already a large steamer had been withdrawn from Australia in order to proceed to the Argentine for meat.Mr. Seddon concluded by saying that no reply to his protest had yet been received from the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The House ought to be informed distinctly whether Mr. Berg had any opportunity of amending his contract after the tenders were sent in and before the completion of the contract, and why the Government let the contract without ascertaining who the Company were and who were to execute it? When this question was asked in another place—it was not answered—the Secretary of State for the Colonies was reported to have interpolated the remark—What does that matter.That seems to me to go to the root of the whole question. What does it matter? The Government appear to be so secure in their three to one majority in the other House, and in their twelve to one majority in this House, that their motto seems to be, "Nothing matters." But I venture to think this question does matter, and it should be probed to the bottom. I am so dissatisfied with the manner in which these contracts have been made by His Majesty's Government that on an early date I shall move for Papers relating to 817 the whole of the Meat Contracts to be laid on the Table of your Lordships' House, and if these are refused I shall most certainly take the sense of the House upon the matter.
* LORD RAGLANI can assure the noble Earl that the work of distribution was not such an easy matter as he seems to imagine. It involved distribution over the entire surface of British South Africa, and the meat had to be delivered how, when, and where, and in what proportions of fresh and frozen the officer commanding the troops desired. The noble Earl has accused me, somewhat unfairly, of drawing the long bow with regard to Mr. Bergl's backers. I am not in the habit of doing that either in private or official life, and when I make a statement in this House I make it to the best of my belief and according to the information at my disposal. Messrs. Houlder, one of Mr. Bergl's guarantors, are partners with him in owning large meat works in Queens land. The other guarantors, the Federal Steamship Company, own meat works in New Zealand, and in Brisbane and Sydney. Therefore, I think I was hardly wrong in describing the guarantors of Mr. Bergl as gentlemen with very large financial interests, in the meat line especially, in Australia and New Zealand. The noble Earl also read out a long list of gentlemen who, he had been informed, had shares in this company. That list was practically correct, and it appeared to me that many of the names were those of gentlemen of considerable financial stability.
§ EARL CARRINGTONI desire to express my regret if anything I have said has caused the noble Lord any annoyance. My reference was in no way personal. All I meant to convey was that the noble Lord was the official mouthpiece of the Government; but if any word I have used has given him pain, I most unhesitatingly withdraw it, and express my regret for having used it.