Lords Sitting of 20 February 1902

EARL OF SEFTON.
  EARL OF DARNLEY.
  Ordered and Directed, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, that Certificates be sent by the Clerk of the Parliaments to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, stating that the Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom has reported to the House of Lords that the right of the Earl of Sefton and of the Earl of Darnley to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of him the said Lord Chancellor; and that the House of Lords has ordered such reports to be sent to the said Clerk of the Crown in Ireland; And it is hereby also Ordered that the said Reports of the said Lord Chancellor be sent to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland.
  PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
    KING'S ROAD RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
    A petition of Messrs. Broughton, Nocton and Broughton of 12, Great Marlborough Street, London, solicitors, praying for leave to present a petition of Robert John Pettiward and others, praying to be heard by counsel against the Bill, although the time limited by Standing Order No. 92, for presenting such petition, has expired; read, and ordered to lie on the Table; and Standing Order No. 92 to be considered on Monday next, in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said petition.
    WEARDALE AND SHILDON DISTRICT WATER BILL [H.L.]
    Read 2a (according to order).
    GREAT NORTHERN AND STRAND RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
    Read 2a (according to order).

    MENAI BRIDGE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
    Standing Order No. 92, considered (according to order) and dispensed with,
    550
    with respect to a Petition of the Hon. Claud Hamilton Vivian; leave given to present the said Petition.

    LONDON UNITED ELECTRIC RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
    Standing Order No. 92. considered (according to order), and dispensed with with respect to a Petition of the Urban District Council of Barnes; leave given to present the said Petition.
    NORTH-WEST LONDON RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
    Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
    WAR IN SOUTH AFRICA (MEAT CONTRACTS).
    Conditions of contract with M. Bergl and Co., for meat supply to troops in South Africa.
    ARMY (RECRUITING).
    Annual Report of the Inspector-General of Recruiting for the year 1901.
    TRADE REPORTS.
    Miscellaneous Series: No. 574. Report on Prussian railways.

    LOCAL TAXATION (ROYAL COMMISSION).
    Report on valuation in Ireland by His Majesty's Commissioners appointed to inquire into the subject of local taxation.
    Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

    PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS, 1853 TO 1891 (CONDITIONAL LICENCE).
    Licence granted by His Majesty to Marion Edith Morrell a convict now, under detention in Aylesbury Prison,

    551
    permitting the said Marion Edith Morrell to be at large on condition that she enter the Elizabeth Fry Refuge, Hackney, London, E.

    POLLING DISTRICT (COUNTY OF NORTHAMPTON).
    Order made by the County Council of Northampton altering certain polling districts in the Southern and Mid-Parliamentary Divisions.
    Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

    CREMATION BILL [H.L.]
    Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
    PROTECTION OF INNKEEPERS BILL [H.L.]
    Order of the Day for the Second Reading read, and discharged.

    Australian Commonwealth Legislation affecting South Sea Islanders.
    LORD LAMINGTONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the attention of His Majesty's Government had been directed to the Pacific Island Labourers Act of the Commonwealth of Australia, wherein (1) power was given to deport Islanders who came to Australia under the laws of the Colony of Queensland, which sanctioned their permanent residence in that Colony if so inclined; and (2) which provided no obligation to return these Islanders to their proper villages on their respective Islands, or to ensure their safety on their landing there. For a number of years South Sea Islanders had been imported into Queensland for the purpose of working the sugar fields. They were usually engaged for a period of three years, and then returned to their homes; but under the Act of 1884 the number of men imported was allowed to increase so long as they engaged in certain branches of tropical agriculture. The Pacific Island Labourers Act, recently passed by the Government of the Commonwealth, gave power to deport these Islanders to the Islands from which they originally came. He thought
    552
    it was exceedingly hard that these men, having acquired certain habits of civilisation, and, in many cases, property in Australia, should be compelled against their will to leave what was practically their home without any compensation. Unless they were taken back to the exact locality on the Islands from which they came, these people were almost certain to be killed and possibly eaten. No other race, not even the Chinese, would be treated as the Pacific Islanders were to be under this Act. The Queensland Act of 1880 contained a clause which made it compulsory that they should be returned to the villages on their respective islands from which they came, but there was no such provision in the new Act. When this serious defect was pointed out, Mr Barton stated that the Pacific Islanders Labourers Act ran with the Queensland Act, or, rather, that it did not in any way repeal the Queensland Act. That might be so, but it was not to be supposed, now that the traffic was to be stopped, that the Queensland Government would take any further interest in carrying out the provisions of the Queensland Act. The principle laid down by the Secretary of State in reference to another Act recently passed was that distinction of race or colour should be no disqualification. But here a cruel disqualification was being inflicted on men who had been working for years in the interests of the development of the Colony, and who were to be forcibly deprived of their present means of existence without compensation. Some guarantee for their proper protection on their return ought to be given. He hoped that representations on the subject would be made to the Commonwealth Government.
    *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of ONSLOW): My Lords, this being a very important Act, I need hardly say that the matter has been considered by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, but I do not gather that the noble Lord desires that the Secretary of State should take any action in regard to it. The subject is one which is entirely within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Australia. It is one which affects them entirely, and they

    553
    must be left to deal with it in their own way. The noble Lord has suggested that a very serious evil may happen to these labourers when they return to their own country—that, instead of being received with acclamation, their fellow-countrymen will, I think the noble Lord went so far as to say, kill them and probably proceed to eat them. That is certainly a very alarming outlook, but I trust that the noble Lord's fears are somewhat exaggerated. Although as I read the Act, there is nothing in it which provides for the repatriation of these labourers to their own particular villages, the attention of the Commonwealth Government will be called to the matter and a hope expressed that every care will be taken, as I am sure the Commonwealth Government would desire, to see that when these men are sent back, they are sent back to their own villages, and under such conditions that they may be expected to be willingly received there. The great majority of these men are not British subjects, and they are really living in a state of barbarism. You can hardly expect that the Commonwealth Government should open its shores freely to people who are in a state of barbarism or, at any rate, semi-barbarism; and I think the noble Lord will admit that it is entirely within the right of the Commonwealth Government to exclude these men if they think fit. I have no doubt that the Colony of Queensland may consider it a great hardship that these men are not allowed to come and work in the sugar fields, but that is a matter of internal administration in which, I am sure, the noble Lord, with his knowledge and experience of Australia, would not think it would be proper for His Majesty's Government to interfere.
    LORD LAMINGTONsaid that, as the Act stood at present, there was no security that the Islanders would be returned to their respective villages. All he asked was that a clause should be inserted to this effect similar to the clause in the Queensland Act of 1880.
    *THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The Secretary of State will draw the
    554
    attention of the Commonwealth Government to the point which the noble Lord has raised.
    LORD LAMINGTONalso asked the Under Secretary for the Colonies whether any communication had been received from the Lieutenant-Governor or Government of Queensland referring to the Pacific Island Labourers Act of the Commonwealth of Australia.
    *THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Nothing has been received except the document with which, probably, the noble Lord is familiar—namely, the representation or petition of the Prime Minister of Queensland to the Senate of the Commonwealth. I can lay that on the Table of the House, if it is desired, although it has been already published.

    New Guinea.
    LORD LAMINGTONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he could give the House any information respecting the future administration of British New Guinea.
    *THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The Commonwealth Government have agreed to assume the responsibility for, and accept the government of, British New Guinea in lieu of Queensland, and have agreed to set aside a sum of £20,000 a year for the purpose of supplementing the local revenue. The exact details of the transfer have not yet been arranged, and, when completed, will be presented to Parliament.

    Distribution of Meat Supplies to Troops in South Africa.
    LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, who I am glad to see in his place again after his recent indisposition, what the practice is with regard to the distribution of meat to the troops in South Africa; and, in particular, whether the contractors are not allowed the free use of military wagons to some extent; and, if so, to what extent.
    *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord RAGLAN): My Lords, I think I can best answer the noble Lord's Question by quoting the

    555
    forty-first paragraph of the contract into which we have just entered, which provides that supplies shall be delivered by the contractor at such times and places as the commanding officer may direct at his (the contractor's) own expense, and he paying all expenses connected therewith. The clause proceeds—
    "Should exceptional circumstances exist the officer commanding may consider the advisability of giving the contractor such assistance in this respect as may be in his power; but it is cleanly to be understood that such assistance will be an indulgence and not a right.'
    I can add nothing to statements already made as to the difficulties of distribution among troops in various positions in South Africa. It is not surprising that the prices were in proportion to the difficulties. As to the amount of assistance which the military authorities actually do afford as an indulgence to the contractor, I am afraid I cannot give any general information; but it is obvious that such assistance would vary according to circumstances, and that the military would do everything in their power to assist the contractor, not relieving him from responsibility in the matter.
    LORD MONKSWELL: I should like to know if the conditions mentioned are alike in the former and present contracts. The price in the former contract was defended on the ground that the unsettled state of the country entailed heavy expenses on the contractor from which the contractor will now be relieved.
    *LORD RAGLAN: I believe the former contract contained the same clause, but then the railway was subject to frequent breaks from which it does not now suffer, and the difficulties of distribution were much greater.
    LORD MONKSWELL: I am at a loss to understand what considerable expense the contractor could have been put to.
    * THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): The point made by my noble friend the Under Secretary for War was that the expenses of distribution must have been very much greater at the beginning of the war, when a large part of the country was in the hands of the enemy, than they are now, when a
    556
    large part of South Africa has been restored to something like order.
    LORD MONKSWELL: I should have thought that, under the clause giving the military authorities power to assist in the distribution of meat, they would have given more assistance when the country was disturbed than when it was not.

    SOUTH AFRICA—ARMY MEAT CONTRACTS.
    EARL CARRINGTON: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the contracts for supplying the Imperial troops in South Africa with meat; and also to the enormous profits derived therefrom by the contractors; and to move that all Papers (including Australian and other tenders) should be laid on the Table of the House. Since I gave notice of this Motion I have been given to understand that pourparlers have taken place between the Agents General of the Colonial States and the War Office, and that negotiations for an alteration of the terms of the contract with Mr. Bergl are in progress; and, therefore, I need not trouble your Lordships with comments on the injustice which we thought had been meted out to the Australian States by the contract. I hope and believe that that will be rectified, though I reserve to myself the perfect right of future criticism in the event of the new arrangement not appearing to be perfectly fair and just to the Australian States. I would have left that part of the subject entirely but for the observations reported to have been made by Lord Stanley in a speech at Liverpool last night. Lord Stanley criticised the remarks which I made some ten days since in your Lordships' House, when I referred to Mr. Bergl's contract. I called attention to the fact that the Australian Premiers had objected to its unjust conditions, and I will again read to the House the telegram which Mr. Seddon, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, sent to this country:
    "The action as regards this contract has caused widespread irritation, and the feeling about it is becoming intensely bitter. Every Chamber of Commerce has passed resolutions against this action, and I am informed that already a large steamer has been withdrawn from Australia in order to proceed to the Argentine for meat."

    557
    I may mention, in passing, that since I made that speech in your Lordships' House I have received a telegram from the Prime Minister of New Zealand conveying to me the thanks of the people of that country for my action in the matter. As this contract is being amended, I hope and believe that in its new shape it will redound to the credit and the business capacity of my noble friend Lord Stanley. Lord Stanley, criticising the remarks I made, is reported to have said:
    "Lord Carrington attempted to compare the prices paid for meat for the troops in south Africa with the price of meat for the Royal kitchen."
    That is perfectly true, but I understated the price. I put it at 10d. per lb.; I now find that the price paid by His Majesty's Government under the first contract was 11d. per lb. But my noble friend confuses the two contracts. The remarks I made were addressed to the former contract with the Cold Storage Company, for which the noble Lord was not responsible. Lord Stanley, continuing his remarks, said:
    "What could all this prove except at some distant period Lord Carrington was connected with the Royal Household "
    It is true that there was a proud period of three years in my life when I had the honour of serving in the office of Lord Chamberlain. Lord Stanley added:
    "Lord Carrington is at present ready to take any advantage, truthful or untruthful, to secure a Party move."
    I sincerely hope that my noble friend has been misreported, but if he has not been, then I will tell him, what I am sure I need not tell your Lordships, that in bringing this subject before the House I have been actuated by the same motive that led my noble friend Lord Tweed mouth to raise the question of remounts—a desire to perform a public dut.
    In calling attention to the meat supplies to the Imperial troops in South Africa, I have to say that the fact that the first contract, to which I shall entirely confine myself, was not open in the usual way to public competition, was the source of great expense to the taxpayers of the country. There was in South Africa an import duty of 2½d. per lb. on all imported meat when the contract was made. Sir James Sivewright, who was formerly Commissioner for Crown
    558
    Lands and Public Works, and Mr. De Graaff, who is a well-known South African, were both on the directorate of the Cold Storage Company, the Company which had the first contract granted to them by the Government. It is very important to know when this import duty was repealed, whether a rebate was paid to the British Government, and what was the amount of the rebate, and the date of payment.
    When I first called attention to this matter, I stated that the price of the meat was 10d. per lb.—it now turns out to be 11d. per lb.—and that this was a Bond Street price and equal to that paid for the baron of beef on the Royal Table at Christmas. The noble Lord the Under Secretary for War, in reply to that said:—
    "I wish to correct a misapprehension. The contract price was not only for the supply of meat; it included and the work of distribution was not an easy mat er."
    That is a self-evident proposition. But Mr. Bergl has himself stated, in the British Australasian of Feb. 13—and it was repeated in the Daily Mail and Westminster Gazette of yesterday—that the utmost that could be charged for carriage (which, of course, includes distribution) would be 2d. per lb. I stated that, with regard to distribution, no charge was made for carrying the meat on the railway, which was under military control, and the noble Lord (Lord Raglan) pointed out that there was such a thing as distribution beyond the railway. Of course, that is perfectly true. Troops were beyond the railway, and meat had to be supplied to them by means of carts or wagons. We have heard from the Under Secretary, in reply to the question of my noble friend behind me, that the contractors were indulged with the use—
    *LORD RAGLAN: What I said was that the contractors under certain circumstances might have assistance, but that it was a matter of indulgence and not a matter of right.
    EARL CARRINGTON: The contractors, at any rate, have been indulged with the assistance of military wagons, at a grateful country's expense, to take meat to the soldiers at the Front. The military

    559
    authorities had been hiring wagons, with oxen and drivers, from the Boers themselves at 30s. a day. An Army Order was suddenly issued which compelled the military authorities to hand over these wagons to the contractors, who forthwith charged an arranged price of £3 a day to the British Government whilst, however, continuing to pay the Boers 30s. a day, A calculation made by a military friend of mine on the spot—by the way he said, "For God's sake don't mention my name"—was that these contractors must have cleared a profit of at least £1 a day on each of these wagons, after leaving 10s. for deficiencies and contingencies or a total annual calculated profit of at least £3,000,000 sterling. Since a certain recent meeting at the War Office, officers in England have become extraordinarily reticent, and it is, therefore, more difficult than ever to obtain statistics. But supposing there were 10,000 waggons—1 waggon to every 25 men—then the contractors, if they were able to clear £365 a year on each waggon, would make a clear profit of £3,650,000—£650,000 more than that estimated by my anonymous military friend.
    The noble Lord who represents the War Office has told the House that the distribution in the early part of the war was more difficult than it was later, but I would remind the House that in the early part of the war the country was full of cattle. A representative of the Cold Storage Company always accompanied the columns. The cattle captured, amounting to thousands, on being brought into camp, were counted and taken over at so much by the standard weight, and were then issued to the troops at 11d. per lb. Commandeered cattle were also bought from the Boers. These were sometimes left behind and afterwards recaptured and sold to the troops, this happening over and over again. There is a story well known in South Africa of a certain prize ox which was sold and resold so often that the number of times was popularly supposed to have reached that of the extreme limit of fraternal forgiveness according to Scripture. Lord Raglan informed the House that he had no information as to the profits of the Cold Storage Company. But there has
    560
    been some more information given in the last few days by Mr. Bergl, who has told us that the price agreed to be paid by the British Government for every pound of meat delivered on the spot was lld., that the meat was bought by the contractor at 3d. and a fraction of a penny, and that the utmost cost of distribution was about 2d.; so that the total cost of every pound of meat to the Cold Storage Company was 5d., leaving them a net profit of 6d. per lb. The net profit on every sheep weighing 50lbs. was 25s. In other words, there was a net gain of 120 per cent. on the transaction. Mr. Bergl concluded by saying:
    "I should say that at the end of the first year and a half the Cold Storage Company must have made four and a half millions sterling."
    I submit that these are most prodigious profits. But that is not all. There are queer stories about profits on remounts, on clothing, provisions, wine, and hospital comforts, fodder, and other necessaries of the war. I contend that these stories ought to be sifted to the bottom. If the statements are untrue, they should be contradicted. If they are true, such a scandal ought to be stopped at once, and the offenders ought to be brought to the bar of public opinion, and, if necessary, to justice. I believe I am right in saying that in a case like this the country will not stand any secrecy, concealment, or mystery, or any scapegoats. There ought to be an immediate and open inquiry into the whole system of Government contracts. How this is to be brought about is for others to determine. All I have to do now is to move for all the Papers—and I include Papers which will give the names of the vendor or vendors, the promoter or promoters, and the subsequent shareholders in the Gold Storage Company which is alleged to have made such tremendous profits—connected with these meat contracts; and in simple justice to Australia, and for the credit of the country, I hope and believe I shall not ask in vain.
    Moved, "That a humble Address be presented to His Majesty for all Papers (including those connected with Australia) relating to the contracts for supplying the Imperial troops in South Africa with meat."—(The Earl Carrington.)
    *LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, the noble Earl commenced his speech by alluding to some remarks made by Lord Stanley at Liverpool last night. I have not read that speech, and am afraid I am not in a position to discuss the statements therein contained. Neither am I in a position to give the noble Earl the information he asks for with regard to the import duty. The noble Earl has enlarged on the profits made upon the Cold Storage Company's contract; but he must remember that this was a war contract made in South Africa by officers whose duty it is to make these contracts to the best of their ability, and to the best advantage of His Majesty's service. The noble Earl passed over the question of distribution somewhat lightly; but I must again call your Lordships' attention to the very great difficulty of distributing this enormous amount of meat over a very large country during a state of war. If it was merely a question of the carriage of so many live animals or carcases over a railway from one point to another, it would be very easy to calculate the cost; but under this contract the contractors are liable not only to carry the beasts from one place to another, but also to provide herdsmen and butchers, the appliances for killing, cutting up, and weighing, and so forth. The noble Earl alluded to the question of the cattle captured from the enemy, and especially to one celebrated prize ox which, he said, was sold to the troops even unto seventy times seven.
    *EARL CARRINGTON: I made no charge against the contractors with respect to this prize ox. All I said was that the animal was captured and recaptured over and over again, and sold and resold over and over again.
    *LORD RAGLAN: I am afraid I have no information with regard to the prize ox. I now come to the question of the profits made by the Cold Storage Company. Those profits are rapidly increasing by leaps and bounds. Ten days ago they were said to be £1,000,000. A few days later a newspaper put them down at several millions, and now the noble Earl states them to be £4,500,000.
    EARL CARRINGTON: Mr. Bergl said that. They are his figures, not mine.
    *LORD RAGLAN: I did not gather that £4,500,000 was Mr. Bergl's figures, but, whosesoever figure it is, it is a large advance on the figure first quoted. I have not seen the Company's balance sheet and so cannot make any statement on the subject. The noble Earl moves for Papers in connection with these contracts. He must be well aware that it has never been the custom to lay on the Table of either House the prices of tenders made for Government contracts. In the year 1888 the Directors of Navy and Army Contracts were directed to consult the leading commercial authorities in the country with the view to ascertaining their opinions as to the advisability of making these tenders public. They consulted 103 individual firms and 70 Chambers of Commerce, and the answers received were almost unanimously in favour of the existing practice of not making tenders public. Of the 48 replies received from Chambers of Commerce, 24 were on the side of publicity, 20 against, and four were unable to come to a decision; but the twenty which decided against publicity represented the chief manufacturing districts in the kingdom, whilst the bulk of those who favoured publicity had had little experience of Government contracts. Of the total of 112 answers received, no less than 101 were in favour of secrecy. If your Lordships will think the matter over, you will see how disadvantageous it is, from a commercial point of view, to publish tenders. In the case of the contract now being carried through, it is a particularly large and important contract, and the Company is a new Company constructed solely for the purpose of this particular contract. Therefore, the objections to publication do not apply so strongly; but it may often be the cause of great loss to a firm, and certainly of very great annoyance, when they make a quotation for ordinary purposes, to have thrown in their teeth the rate at which they had quoted to the Government under a contract for, probably, very much larger quantities.
    As to the contract under discussion, the Government took the lowest out of 65. The contract is only made for one

    563
    year, and it has been taken by a strong, competent, and financially stable body, who have deposited £200,000 as earnest of their ability to carry it out. We have, to the best of our power, safeguarded the Colonies in the matter of the meat supply, and we have arranged that the meat shall be inspected and reported upon on landing, so as to insure that the clause is, as far as possible, carried out. The noble Earl seems disposed to ask for the Colonies more than they ask for themselves. All the Colonies have asked for is that they shall receive fair treatment. I can assure your Lordships that the Government are most anxious to secure fair treatment for the Colonies, and in our opinion the contract we have made is in accordance with that feeling.
    THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I would remind the House that we are dealing, not with vague and indefinite questions, but with a matter which seriously affects the taxpayers of this country. The noble Lord the Under Secretary for War has stated that the profits made by the Cold Storage Company have been magnified. In answer to that I cannot do better than quote the words of Mr. Bergl himself, which appear in today's Daily Mail—
    "What the Cold Storage Company have made out of their contract is not for me to say. What I do say is that I, or any other man, selling and buying at the prices they did, making all allowances for carriage, must have made four and a half millions in the first year and one and a half in the last—six millions on the contract. If the Company only cleared two millions, as is said, I do not understand it; but it is not my business."
    For my part, with all due deference to the noble Lord, I would place more reliance upon the business capacity and accuracy of Mr. Bergl than upon the words put into the mouths of the Under Secretary by the War Office. A very large sum of money has admittedly been squandered, and there is no evidence to show that the present administration of affairs is any better. I insist that the country should be afforded some evidence that the money they so freely contribute to bring the war to a successful issue is properly and economically spent. The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Lord Stanley), in his speech at Liverpool, expressed the hope that the curtain would be drawn, and said there was
    564
    nothing to conceal. But, to judge from the speech of the noble Lord who represents the War Office in this House, we are to be denied any papers or information. We are told that an inquiry now would be too soon, and that we must wait until the war is over. The inevitable answer then will be that it is too late. The refusal of the Government to give the necessary information can be interpreted only in one way, and that is that they are afraid to take the public into their confidence. I hope the noble Earl will go to a division, in which case I shall certainly support him.
    *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, there is one thing at all events in regard to which we are all agreed. That is that, after the splendid way in which the colonies have stood by us in the crisis through which we have been pa sing, no effort should be spared in order to give the representatives of colonial commerce a chance of competing on the most fair and equitable conditions for the supply of the commodities necessary for the troops in the field. I venture to think that nothing has occurred to show that such an opportunity has been denied to the colonies. The noble Earl who brought the subject before the House has again stated, upon the authority of persons who have been interviewed by representatives of the Press, that the Cold Storage Company made enormous profits out of their contract. It is, to my mind, perfectly possible that the company made very large profits indeed. But the question is not whether the company have put a large sum of money into their pockets, but whether the contract entered into with them on the part of the Government was or was not the best contract that could be made under the circumstances. With regard to that point, I still maintain that it is necessary to take into account the condition of South Africa at the time the contract was entered into. The country was extremely disturbed, the risk to the contractor was very large, and altogether it was not a transaction into which any prudent person would enter, except with the prospect of obtaining an abundant return on his investment. In the case of that contract, as well as in the case of the later contract which has been concluded with Mr. Bergl, the contractor was held bound to distribute the meat to the troops in the field. One

    565
    reason why the Cold Storage, Company made such very large profits was this—the contract provided for the distribution of both frozen and live meat, and during the long delay in the military operations at the Modder River the troops were supplied by the contractor, not with live cattle, accompanying the troops in the field, but with frozen meat, that was easily conveyed by rail. The troops, however, did not suffer by the change. I believe I am right in saying that the frozen meat was very much preferred by the troops to the meat taken from the oxen of the country, which is, I fancy, not always an easily digestible morsel. The noble Earl then referred to the 2d. per lb. import duty. The taking off of that duty did not affect this contract, for the reason that Government stores have never been subject to the duty.
    EARL CARRINGTON: That is a very satisfactory answer.
    *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The noble Earl relies for his statements on the evidence of Mr. Bergl; but, considering that Mr. Bergl is a rival meat contractor, the noble Earl might have taken that evidence with a few grains of salt. It is very like what happened here the other night when we were discussing remounts. The evidence of rival horse dealers from whom we had not purchased horses was quoted to show that the horse dealers from whom we had purchased remounts were unreliable. Fortunately I am able to produce to your Lordships evidence which I am sure the House will accept as more trustworthy. The contract with the Cold Storage Company formed the subject of examination by the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons, and they declared that, having regard to the difficulty of supply, and the uncertainty of events, Colonel Richardson, the officer who made the contract in South Africa, was justified in his action, and the only criticism which the Committee offered, was that it might have been better if separate contracts had been entered into for the frozen and the live meat. I maintain that, in the face of that opinion, it is unfair that the kind of charges should be made which we have heard, not for the first time, this evening. Now, I wish
    566
    to say a word with regard to the recent contract. The noble Earl stated that the War Office was about to revise the contract with Messrs. Bergl.
    EARL CARRINGTON: I said I understood, unofficially, that a meeting had been held at the War Office, at which the Agents General of all the Australian Colonies, with one exception, were present, and that as a result better arrangements were being made than those of which Mr. Seddon so justly complained.
    *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The noble Earl is correct in saying that there has been a conference, but what I wish the House to understand is that the contract with Messrs. Bergl stands, the price stands, the bargain stands. The conference was held with the object of deciding in what manner effect could be given to the provision which was not in the contract itself, but was a subsequent undertaking—namely, that the meat should, as far as possible, be obtained from the Colonies. With regard to the contract itself, which remains unaltered, I should like your Lordships to know that before it was entered into, the whole question was considered very thoroughly by the Financial Secretary to the War Office, assisted by the Quartermaster General, the Assistant Under Secretary, and the Director of Contracts, and that they took into their counsel Colonel Morgan, who was chief of the commissariat with Sir Redvers Buller's force, and who is now chief commissariat officer to Lord Kitchener. No higher authority than Colonel Morgan could have been consulted, and it was in consultation with that officer, that Messrs. Bergl's tender was accepted. The greater part of the tenders did not provide for the distribution of the meat, and these gentlemen came to the conclusion—which, I must say, seems to me to have been a common-sense one—that in all the circumstances it was infinitely better that the task of distribution should be undertaken by the contractor than by His Majesty's Government. Messrs. Bergl's contract was the lowest of those which provided for the distribution of the meat, and it was

    567
    accordingly accepted, with the condition already referred to with regard to the Colonies. It has been arranged that there shall be monthly inspections and reports at intervals, in order to secure that the provision binding the contractor to deal as far as possible with the Colonies is honourably observed. I noted with pleasure that the noble Earl did not repeat the arguments which he used the other evening to discredit Mr. Bergl as a contractor. He told us the other day that one of Mr. Bergl's employees had been fined £10 for selling, as New Zealand lamb, meat which had not its origin in that Colony. If that is to be considered sufficient reason for discarding the lowest tender for a very large contract, and preferring a more expensive tender, it seems to me that we are likely to be led into a great deal of unnecessary expense. I also noticed with pleasure that the noble Earl did not return to the attack on Mr. Bergl's guarantors, whose function it is to provide a certain sum of money as security that the contract shall be fulfilled. That money has been provided and paid.
    EARL CARRINGTON: I deny having made any attack on the guarantors. I only read their names to the House.
    *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: If the noble Earl will refer to the report of his speech, I think he will feel bound to admit that the impression it was likely to make on the House was that he desired to ridicule and vilipend everybody connected with the contract.
    EARL CARRINGTON: I certainly did not mean that.
    *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I accept the assurance of the noble Earl, but that was the impression made upon the House by his speech. With reference to the price of the contract concluded with Mr. Bergl, I have received a piece of evidence which I must say weighs a good deal with me, and that is that the contract price for frozen meat delivered to the Admiralty at Simon's Bay is 5¾d. per lb. as compared with 5½d. for frozen meat distributed by Messrs. Bergl up country. Therefore I do not think that
    568
    on that item, at any rate, we can have made such a very bad bargain. With regard to the production of Papers, I desire to enforce what was said by my noble friend the Under Secretary. This question of the secrecy of tenders was very fully considered in 1887 by the War Office. The matter came before Mr. Stanhope, one of the fairest-minded public men who has ever served the country, and in his reply in the House of Commons Mr. Stanhope made this statement—
    "There is a good deal to be said against secrecy, and I will undertake to consider, in conjunction with the Admiralty, whether the balance of advantage on the whole lies on the side of publicity."
    After that, the question was considered by the Director-General of Army Contracts and the Director General of Navy Contracts, and they collected an immense amount of evidence from large firms, used to Government contracts, and from Chambers of Commerce. The evidence was overwhelming in the direction of establishing that it was most unfair to the trade, as well as most inconvenient to the public, that particulars of tenders of this kind should be generally made known. Among the reasons were these: It was shewn to the satisfaction of the Directors-General that the manufacturers as a rule were ready to quote to Government Departments rates lower than those which they gave to private persons, the reasons being that they desired to keep their workmen employed, the magnitude of Government orders, the security against bad debts, and the prestige of holding Government contracts. The persons who were consulted believed that, if once the habit of publishing these tenders was adopted, the effect would be to encourage cutting prices amongst the different firms, which would have the result that, after perhaps a tender had been accepted from a well-known and thoroughly trustworthy firm, another firm would come in and put in a price fractionally lower, a price which would be unremunerative, but which it would be difficult for the Government to refuse, and which at the same time might lead to its having to depend on much less reliable sources of supply. Hence we should have inferior goods sent in, a large proportion of rejections, and bad

    569
    blood and ill-feeling engendered. The two Directors summed up the result of their inquiries by saying this—
    "While admitting, therefore, the value of publicity from an abstract point of view, the conclusion arrived at, after lengthened personal experience, now strengthened and confirmed by the almost unanimous opinion of manufacturers who have the best means of judging how the publication of prices would affect them, is so strongly opposed to such a course, as being prejudicial to the interests of the country, that there can be no hesitation in recommending the continuance of the present practice of treating tenders as strictly confidential."
    In the face of an opinion of that weight, I do think that the War Office is right in refusing to lay upon the Table the whole of the Papers relating to the contracts in question. The noble Earl (Lord Portsmouth) pressed upon the Government the absolute necessity of making these various charges the subject of an immediate inquiry. I am strengthened in the belief that an immediate inquiry would be improper and inconvenient at the present time, because the noble Earl (Lord Rosebery) has intimated that the inquiry should include the question of remounts, the supply of fodder to the troops, the supply of transport, and many other things besides. This would involve not one but many inquiries, and they would be inquiries of the most momentous kind. The noble Earl (Lord Rosebery) has told us that, in his belief, the facts recently revealed suggested the conclusion that all over the world the Government was being plundered by its agents. That is a tremendous indictment. If the noble Earl had said that all over the world the agents of the Government were being plundered, the matter would have been entirely different. But the charge which is now levelled against these persons is that they are themselves corrupt. The suggestion is that at a moment of the greatest stress and difficulty in the history of this country these persons have not hesitated to avail themselves of the opportunity in order to rob their country. It is a terrible charge, and it would be an unfair thing to commence a number of inquiries raising that question in reference to a number of separate departments at a moment when obviously it would be impossible to procure the whole of the evidence which would be necessary, in order to rebut the odious
    570
    charges which would be made, and which until they were rebutted would remain in possession of the field.
    THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I would not spoil the noble Marquess's peroration, and therefore did not interrupt him. But I may say at once that I never had the slightest idea of imputing corruption to the agents of the Government abroad. If I used the word "by," I will substitute "through" at once. That was what was in my mind.
    * THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: You certainly used the word "by."
    THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: If I used "by," it is not what I meant. If I said "by," I would substitute the word "through."
    EARL CARRINGTON: I must ask the permission of the House to read the following letter which I have just received from Lord Stanley—
    "I have only just seen The Times. I am certainly wrongly reported. What I said was that to make comparisons which could not be called true comparisons would seem to be only takingan unfair advantage for, I must presume, a Party advantage. I had no intention of accusing you of untruthfulness, but I held, and hold, that you cannot make a fair comparison between beef at Windsor Castle and meat supplied to troops in South Africa."
    I am extremely glad to learn that my noble friend was misreported.
    Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
    LORD TWEEDMOUTH: This debate has confirmed me in the opinion that the noble Marquess is wrong in thinking it is not desirable that an immediate inquiry should be held into the subject of these contracts. I beg, therefore, to give notice that on Monday I shall move—
    "That in the opinion of this House it is desirable that a Joint Committee of the two Houses of Parliament be forthwith appointed to inquire into all contracts and purchases made by the War Office, or on its behalf, for the outfit, supply, and maintenance of our troops in South Africa."

    COMMONS ACT, 1899.
    LORD BURGHCLERE: My Lords, I will explain in a very few words why I have asked for this Return. Your

    571
    Lordships will recollect that in 1899 Parliament passed an Act for the better regulation of commons and open spaces. That is now two years ago, and I think we might, with advantage, have some official statistics to show whether or not the Act has been of any service to rural localities, for whose benefit it was really intended. The Return will not cost a penny, as the information is already in the possession of the Board of Agriculture. If, as I believe, the Act has been utilized by rural localities, I think the Return may induce other districts to follow the example of their neighbours and thereby enable the Act to be of greater benefit to the country.
    Moved, That there be laid before the House a Return showing in respect of each scheme approved by the Board of Agriculture for the regulation and management of any common in pursuance of the Commons Act, 1899, to the end of the year 1901—(1) the date of the approval; (2) the name of the common; (3) the district council making the scheme; (4) the county in which the common is situate; and (5) the area of the common—(The Lord Eurghclere).
    EARL HOWE: I am glad to be able to inform my noble friend that the Board of Agriculture have no objection to the granting of the Return for which he asks.
    On Question, Motion agreed to; and ordered accordingly.
    House adjourned at five minutes past Six o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.