HL Deb 06 March 1902 vol 104 cc553-67
EARL CARRINGTON

My Lords, I rise to move for a Return of all contracts entered into by, or on behalf of, the War Office for the supply of wines and spirits for the use of British troops in South Africa, showing in each the names of the contractors, with the prices and origin of the stores contracted for. I may say that "origin" is a trade word, and means the stores, bond, or wholesale house from which the wines and spirits were taken. I make no apology to the House for again bringing forward the subject of contracts, in which a great deal of interest is taken throughout the country; and I am also pleased to see, from the state of the Benches opposite, that the subject is not without some interest to your Lordships. I would remind the House that on February 20th, the Marquess of Lansdowne, speaking on the first meat contract, said— The question was not whether the Cold Storage Company had 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 that could be made under the circumstances. The contracts for wines and spirit—hospital comforts for the troops—amount to a total of hundreds of thousands of pounds, perhaps to a total of a million sterling, and there has been considerable doubt as to the manner in which they have been entered into and carried out. I feel perfectly certain that no one would grudge any expenditure that was necessary to send the best of hospital comforts to our brave soldiers at the front. The opinion of the trade is well expressed in the circular of Messrs. Southard & Co., whose principal is one of the leading auctioneers in the wine and spirit trade in the city of London. In their trade circular of February 19th, this year, they say— While on the subject of legislation, we hope that when the question of contracts is discussed in the House, the question of Government contracts for wine and spirits will also be inquired into, for anything more unbusiness-like than the present way of granting these contracts can scarcely be conceived. The principal wine and spirits sent out to South Africa were brandy, champagne, claret, and port; and to save time I will give only one example of how the contracts were entered into. There was a tender in February, 1901, for seventy-five pipes of port in pint bottles. That means 102,600 pint bottles of port. Samples were to be sent in on February 20th, 1901, and one of the conditions of the contract was that a third of the parcel—34,200 bottles— should be delivered during the month of February, another third in the month of March, and another third in the month of April. As the samples were not delivered till February 20th, it was impossible to deliver one-third of the parcel in February, according to the contracts, for it takes considerably more than eight days to get wine bright and to obtain Government bottles, corks, labels, and cases. Moreover, the War Office insist on wine being sent in in cases of ten bottles each. A dozen case costs 10d. in England and 8d. abroad, whereas the cost of a ten-bottle case is 2s. in England and 4s. on the other side, so that on wine packed in Bordeaux there would be a loss of 3s. 4d. a case. Holders of wine lying in Oporto were also invited to tender for these seventy-five pipes of port, and as the time was short they were invited to send their samples by parcel post! Between England and Oporto there are three frontiers, and it would have been absolutely impossible to get the samples under a week; yet one-third of the parcel was to be delivered on the eighth day. And, again, there is tremendous risk in sending wine from Oporto except at the proper season. Ridley's Circular, quite a leading publication in the wine trade, says:— These may be details, but they show that amateurs, so to speak, are dealing with business which they do not understand. And Mr. Southard states:— Anything more unbusinesslike can hardly be conceived. I now come to the selection of the wine. The Government wine-taster, when the war broke out, was a Mr. Gordon Mills, a member of the firm of Messrs. Robinson & Co., of 20, Mark Lane. He was also in business himself, and was bottler to Messrs. Cockburn, who hold a European reputation as port wine shippers. The spirit-taster was a Mr. Robinson, of Messrs. Trower & Sons, 39, St. Mary-at-Hill. Recognising his disability as being connected with one of the largest firms of shippers, Mr. Mills, greatly to his credit, gave up his appointment. Thereupon Mr. Robinson was made wine-taster as well, although the War Office knew he belonged to a large firm of port shippers who were also agents for brandy, rum, whisky, sherry, and claret, and agents for Messrs. Eschenauer & C who had secured a large Government contract. In August, 1901, Mr. Robinson was replaced by Mr. Godselle, of 81, Great Tower Street, who is agent for a claret house, and is, I am told, connected with other wine businesses. I beg distinctly to state that I do not wish to make any imputation on any one of these gentlemen, but I do say—and I think I shall be supported by the noble Lord behind me—that any one employed in this capacity by the Government ought to be a well paid official and entirely independent of and absolutely unconnected with any houses having business relations with the War Office or any other Government Department. I desire to say a few words with regard to the procedure in connection with the tasting. The bottles are covered with bags before being placed before the taster, so as to be all alike. The glasses are numbered, and when the tasting is over three selected samples are placed on the table. The taster then leaves, and the trade are very interested to know which of the samples is recommended and by whom, and how mistakes are guarded against, so that it is absolutely certain that the selected firm gets the contract.

With regard to the selection of firms to tender, I should like to know—for this is a question which greatly concerns and puzzles the trade—by whom and how the selection is made. Most people would think that the proper thing to do would be to purchase first hand, and not from retailers. The Government had an enormous selected list, so large, indeed, that some of the principal shippers who sent in tenders had been told that their applications could not be considered. I should like to know by whom these firms are selected. That is a mystery which requires to be cleared up. I am told that some of the tenderers on the list had very small stocks indeed, smaller even than those kept at Chatsworth, Knowsley, or at Lord Londonderry's, and that they had to get their samples from the wholesale houses, possibly from the houses who had been refused the opportunity of tendering themselves. There are a great many ugly rumours about which are openly spoken of in the street and on 'Change, though when asked to come forward and confirm them people say they would rather not.

THE PRIME MINISTER AND LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of SALISBURY)

Hear, hear!

EARL CARRINGTON

You may know a thing to be absolutely true and yet not be able to prove it. If it is a fact, as I believe it is, that a certain amount of inferior spirits has been supplied, and that the tip-top price has been paid for it by the Government, who desire to send the best stimulants to our wounded soldiers, I do not hesitate to say it is a national dishonour. The charge ought to be proved or disproved, and the only way of getting at the truth is by the adoption of my Motion. A Commission has been asked for to inquire into the questions of remounts, meat, and transport, but this request has been refused, and we have been told that we must be content to wait till the feelings of public indignation have entirely evaporated.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

That reason was never given.

EARL CARRINGTON

I am quoting from the speech of the noble Marquess. If the Prime Minister will refer to his speech he will find that those are his exact words.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

What I said was that the reason noble Lords opposite desired that we should concur was that we might have an inquiry while the indignation existed, because that would serve the purpose of noble Lords opposite.

EARL CARRINGTON

I am very much obliged to the noble Marquess. That is what we directly challenge. The word "indignation" has never been used on this side of the House.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I think it was used by Lord Tweedmouth.

LORD TWEEDMOUTH

I beg the noble Marquess's pardon. I did not use the word.

EARL CARRINGTON

The word used by Lord Crewe was "uneasiness." So far as I remember, the word "indignation" was not used on this side of the House. Another reason for refusing an inquiry was that it would dislocate and paralyse all business in public offices. On that point I do not profess to be qualified to speak, but I see behind me Lord Welby, who has been intimately connected with the Civil Service for a great many years, and I hope be will be able to say a word on that subject. I would remind the House that the American Civil War Congress appointed such a Committee, which did a vast deal of good. The third reason why the inquiry asked for was refused was that it would last ten years. I respectfully submit that my Motion has none of these objections. All the arrangements could be made and the evidence produced by civilians in London, and you would not have to recall a single soldier from South Africa. If there is nothing to conceal, why not grant my request?

Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for a return of all contracts entered into by, or on behalf of, the War Office for the supply of wines and spirits for the use of British troops in South Africa, showing in each the names of the contractors, with the prices and origin of the stores contracted for."—(The Earl Carrington.)

* THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord RAGLAN)

My Lords, within the last twenty-four hours the noble Earl has altered the terms of his original Motion, which was an extraordinarily wide one. In the original Motion he asked for a Return of all the wines and spirits supplied to His Majesty's Government since the commencement of the war. That would not only have taken in the War Office, but also the Admiralty, the Colonial Office, and the Foreign Office; and I was not at all certain whether it would not have applied to the private wine bills of the members of Government. However, the noble Earl has altered the wording of the Motion, and he now asks for a Return of all contracts entered into by, or on behalf the War Office for the supply of wines and spirits for the use of British troops in South Africa. The noble Earl has asked me several questions with regard to the manner in which the testing of the wine is done. I regret to say that the Under Secretary for War is not a member of the Tasting Committee of the War Office, and therefore I am afraid I cannot give the noble Earl any information as to exactly how the glasses are marked, whether they are labelled 1, 2, and 3, or A, B, and C. But I do not think that is very important so long as care is taken that there is no possible way in which the taster can discover to whom the wine belongs. The noble Earl made a great point of the fact that the tasters employed by the Government had been at different times, or were at the time, connected with the various firms in the wine and spirit trade. I do not think it would be possible to find any competent taster who is not, or has not been, connected in some way with the wine and spirit trade. I do not think it would be wise to make any alteration in that direction.

As to the question of prices, I regret to have to repeat what I have already said on that subject. I am not a great orator, as, no doubt, your Lordships are aware, and it is a matter of extreme difficulty to me to deliver several speeches on the same subject; and, in the circumstances, I do not think your Lordships can look for anything fresh. I have before pointed out that the Government have in their decision not to publish prices the support not only of the immemorial custom of public departments, but of the great commercial bodies qualified to speak in the name of business men. We believe that the publication of the prices would inevitably tend to increase the price of every article purchased by the Government, and the best contractors have the greatest possible objection to tendering when their tenders may be, at a moment's notice, laid open for the inspection of their trade rivals. Moreover, the immediate effect of publishing prices is that the maximum price of an article becomes the minimum price. In buying a large quantity of different articles you cannot get them at the same prices, and if one firm discovers that another is getting a higher price from the Government for a certain article, that firm will immediately put up its price to the highest figure. I do not suppose the noble Earl conducts his own private business on these lines. The publication of these prices would inevitably enable sellers to form a ring against the buyer, and the Government is in a different position from another buyer, because it is obliged to buy when it wants a thing, and cannot wait for a favourable turn in the market.

With regard to the question of wine, I would venture to point out to the noble Earl that price is absolutely no guide whatever. I have myself drank wine costing a very high price which was extremely moderate in quality, and I have tasted cheap wine which was very good. The dearness or cheapness of wine has nothing whatever to do with its quality. I honestly think that the only way in which your Lordships would be able to judge whether or not the price paid was justified by the excellence of the wine received, would be by placing samples on the Table. Noble Lords opposite refuse to recognise the tremendous pressure at which the War Office is working, and seem to imagine that the preparation of this Return would throw very little extra work on the staff. I was not brought up with a very great affection for the War Office, but since I have been inside that Department I have been struck by the great amount of work which has had to be done, and the long hours which it has been necessary for the officials to put in, in order to cope with it. I deprecate placing on the already overburdened shoulders of the War Office Staff the extra load which would be imposed by the Return asked for by the noble Earl, and I hope that he will not press his Motion. The whole point seems to me to be, has the supply of medical comforts to sick and wounded in hospital been good and constant? We believe it has, that the sick have been properly supplied, and that the wines and spirits have been secured at reasonable prices.

LORD MONKSWELL

My Lords, the noble Lord the Under Secretary has made the rather surprising statement that price was no guide at all as to quality. I should have thought that price was a very considerable guide. With regard to publishing the prices, I should like to know whether he had consulted the Wine Trade in the matter. Apparently the noble Earl, who has brought this question forward, has consulted them, and they are anxious that the prices should be published. The noble Lord said it would be impossible to have a wine taster who was not connected with a wine firm. Though that may be, he need not be a man connected with a particular wine firm which is tendering to the War Office. It seems to me that it would have been perfectly possible for the War Office to have got a taster who was entirely unconnected with any of the firms who tendered. The noble Lord, at the conclusion of his speech, said the point was whether the medical comforts were good or bad. There is some evidence on this point in the Report of the Hospitals Commission. Colonel Richardson, the Deputy Adjutant-General for Supplies and Transports, was called before the Commission, and he stated—I am quoting from page 182 of the Evidence— On April 3, 1900, the port wine, whisky, and arrowroot supplied by the War Office was condemned by the medical authorities. The War Office replied that in the opinion of the experts—experts who, we now know, were sometimes connected with the firms tendering—

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

How do you know that?

LORD MONKSWELL

The noble Earl has given one instance of an expert who was interested in firms tendering. The War Office replied that, in the opinion of the experts, the port wine and whisky, were of excellent quality. There being this conflict of testimony, Sir F. Walker, the General Officer commanding at Cape Town, was appealed to, and the fact that he, after tasting the wine and whisky, considered them of good quality, was accepted as ample evidence that they were all right. It appears to me that, after the condemnation by the medical authorities of the wine and whisky supplied by the War Office, the matter ought to have been inquired into.

* THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS The Marquess of LANSDOWNE)

My Lords, I desire to say one word, and one word only, with regard to the position in which your Lordship's House is placed by these constantly renewed inquiries from the Front Bench opposite. Your Lordships decided the other evening, after a protracted and close debate, that the investigation of these matters should not take place at the present time. I do think, my Lords, that we have a right to protest against attempts to ignore that decision, and to transfer to the floor of this House a minute examination of questions of detail which can be properly dealt with only when that inquiry is held. The noble Earl, who introduced this subject, displayed an extraordinary, and, I think I might almost say, bewildering acquaintance with the minutiæ of the wine trade. How is it possible for your Lordships, who have not had the same opportunities that the noble Earl has enjoyed of studying these questions, to follow him into all these details The noble Earl complained, for example, that the Government orders had been for wine in cases of ten instead of 12 bottles. If that is so, it seems to me a perfectly reasonable point to take up. It may be very advantageous that at ordinary times wines should be delivered for the use of the troops in cases of ten bottles. On the other hand, if you want that wine in a great hurry, it may be desirable to dispense with that condition. When I was at the War Office during the earlier stages of the war we constantly found it necessary to give up what is called the sealed pattern, and to be content with something else which could be more readily and more expeditiously procured in the market. But surely that is not a matter your Lordships can pass judgment on tonight. Nor can we undertake to say whether the gentleman or gentlemen employed to taste the wine was or were in all respects the most competent to decide the I question of the merits of these different beverages. I think however that, if you lay it down as a rule that your expert is to be a person wholly unconnected with the wine trade, you will find that he is not an expert at all, and you will be taken to task for relying upon the judgment of an amateur. Then, again, we have such cases as those cited by the noble Lord who spoke last, where in South Africa certain medical comforts were condemned by the medical authorities; but what is there to show that those stores were not of an excellent description when they left this country? They had travelled about South Africa, and might have suffered from the journey and the climate. Those are points which it is impossible for us to deal with in this House. With regard to the question of the publication of prices, I ventured the other evening to remind your Lordships that this matter had been very thoroughly gone into some years ago, in, I think, the year 1888, and that it was then decided that it was undesirable in the public interest to make known these tenders, not upon the advice of one or two isolated authorities, but upon the advice of an immense number of the larger houses that were consulted, and of the Chambers of Commerce, to which this point was specially referred by the Directors of Army and Navy Contracts. I humbly submit to your Lordships that we should accept the decision arrived at by the House the other evening, and abandon the wholly futile attempt to deal with these small matters of detail by discussion across the Table.

THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH

My Lords, I rise to protest against the statement which has just been made by the noble Marquess. I very much regret that the proposal of Lord Tweedmouth was couched in such general language as to afford an argument, when that proposal had been disposed of, that we were to be precluded from any further discussion with reference to these matters. The noble Earl, the Chairman of Committees, speaking the other evening with a singular absence of judicial spirit, but with an exuberance of judicial manner, imputed that we on this side of the House were guided in this matter by Party spirit. I emphatically protest against that imputation. But if this is to be turned into a Party matter, there is no more efficacious way of doing so than to adopt the policy of the noble Marquess opposite, and, by means of a decision arrived at in respect of one matter, to rule out any further inquiry into these subjects. I do not say that this question, in itself, is one of enormous importance; but, having regard to the fact that there exists, as my noble friend has stated, among men of all political opinions and of all classes, a feeling that there has been a great waste and leakage of public money in respect of War Office contracts and other matters, I think it would be a great misfortune if some means were not found of investigating the question. I think the Government might give an assurance that they would be prepared to meet some of the responsible members of the Opposition, and look into these things together. The inquiry could be a confidential one, but, at any rate, the country would then know that the matters had been looked into. It is no satisfaction to be told that there is to be an inquiry after the war is over. We have been blamed for desiring to have an inquiry while the feeling in the country is hot and strong on this matter. We do not want to do any injustice, but if you are to have this matter properly attended to in the country, it must be taken up when the feeling in the country is hot and strong. If my noble friend divides the House I shall support him. But I hope the Government will see their way to meet the views of those on this side of the House by proposing some means by which these matters can be investigated by public men, irrespective of Party, and in that way assure the public that these great sums are not being wasted and misspent.

LORD WELBY

My Lords, although I would not assume or pretend to voice the feeling of the Civil Service on such a question, yet, as I have been referred to by the noble Earl, I may, perhaps, give the House my opinion after forty years experience in the Service. I understand the argument to be against adding to the work already performed by the War Office officials, but I would venture to point out that there is something which comes before the convenience of the Staff —namely, the reputation of the public service. My experience has, I am happy to say, left in my mind a conviction of the uprightness and purity of the Civil Service. But where such immense sums of money are entrusted to public servants, there are always some opportunities and temptations, which may sometimes lead to individuals forgetting their duty. The only preventative of that evil is vigilance on the part of heads of Departments, and, more especially, on the part of His Majesty's Ministers. If the knowledge gets abroad throughout the service that His Majesty's Ministers do not shrink from investigating any suspicious circumstance or any doubtful question, and that they are not afraid of probing them to the bottom, I think that knowledge will prevent evils of this kind occurring. My experience is that, when any doubtful question arises, the best civil servants would, without exception, desire that it should be probed in the interests of the public service. There is throughout the Civil Service a fine feeling of esprit de corps, and where that feeling exists there is considerable danger of an objection to publicity in fear that it would cloud the reputation of a great service; but I think it is the duty of His Majesty's Ministers to take care that such a tendency — not an unnatural tendency—should not lead to evils much greater than those which attend the postponement of inquiry. There is no question but that there are rumours about—I hope and trust that they are unfounded or exaggerated—but, however that may be, I believe the only way of meeting them is to pay some attention to the criticisms that are made in this and the other House of Parliament, and to bring the question to a conclusion by investigation.

My Lords, I confess that I was disappointed with the speeches of the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Chairman of Committees the other night. It appeared to me that they hardly realised their public duty when they wished to postpone inquiry until the end of the war. I am afraid that members of His Majesty's Government are not quite so stalwart and bold as were their predecessors in 1854 and 1855. I recollect that when the Crimean war was at its height the War Office was being reorganised. The whole frame of that Department was put into the melting pot at that time. I remember, also, that the Government of Lord Palmerston, when they were subjected to the severest criticism, were able to send out two men to investigate charges of mismanagement in the Crimea. Throughout that time the Government did not rely upon the plea that the officials were not to be called upon to answer or investigate these charges. Here, again, I would point out the danger of postponing inquiry. The Report of these two gentlemen was submitted to a Board of Officers at Chelsea, who issued their Report immediately after peace had been declared; and it may be in the recollection of your Lordships that that Report whitewashed all the officers concerned, and that the country was so contented at the conclusion of the war that the whitewashing was allowed to pass. Towards the close of the Crimean war a question of fraud arose in

connection with the purchase of mules in the East, and my recollection is that the Government lost no time in sending out a high financial officer to inquire into the charge. This resulted in the establishment of the fact that there had been very considerable mismanagement and very great losses of public money from the transaction. The plea that the time of Government officials could not be made use of to rebut accusations of mismanagement and charges of malversation did not obtain with the Government of that day. As an old civil servant, having a real pride in the service to which I had the honour to belong, I urge that no opportunity should be lost for reasonable investigation into the charges which have been brought forward.

LORD VIVIAN

My Lords, having had the misfortune—I say misfortune because it took me away from my work, not on account of the wine with which I was supplied—to be wounded in South Africa, and to be three months in hospital, I should like to state that during the whole course of that time I never heard a single complaint either from a private soldier or an officer as to the quality of the wine supplied.

THE EARL OF ERROL

My Lords, I had considerable experience of the hospitals during the time I was in South Africa. I gathered the evidence of doctors and of officers and men who had been wounded, and I can entirely corroborate every word the noble Lord who has just spoken has said. The quality of the wine and spirits was most excellent and I never heard any complaint at all.

On question, their Lordships divided— Contents, 16 Not contents, 79.

CONTENTS.
Northampton, M. Spencer, E. Northbourne, L.
Ripon, M. Reay, L.
Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.) Ribblesdale, L.
Carrington, E. [Teller.] Aberdare, L. Sandhurst, L.
Chesterfield, E. [Teller.] Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) Tweedmouth, L.
Portsmouth, E. Monkswell, L. Welby, L.
NOT CONTENTS.
Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.) Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.) Nothumberland, D.
Devonshire, D. (L. President.) Grafton, D. Wellington, D.
Salisbury, M. (L. Pricy Seal.) Marlborough, D. Lansdowne, M.
Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward.) Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) James, L.
Verulam, E. Kenyon, L.
Clarendon, E.(L.Chamberlain) Waldegrave, E. [Teller.] Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)
Bradford, E. Westmeath, E. Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)
Camperdown, E. Lawrence, L.
Carnwath, E. Cross, V. Macnaghten, L.
Cawdor, E. Knutsford, V. Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)
Dartmouth, E. Llandaff, V. Mostyn, L.
Dartrey, E. Muskerry, L.
Eldon, E. Addington, L. Newton, L.
Feversham, E. Ashbourne, L. Pirbright, L.
Hardwicke, E. Avebury, L. Raglan, L.
Harrowby, E. Balfour, L. Rathdonnell, L.
Howe, E. Barnard, L. Rathmore, L.
Lathom, E. Belper, L. Robertson, L.
Lauderdale, E. Chelmsford, L. Rosmead, L.
Lichfield, E. Chesham, L. Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)
Lindsey, E. Churchill, L. [Teller.] Sinclair, L.
Lucan, E. Colville of Culross, L. Stalbridge, L.
Onslow, E. Congleton, L. Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)
Romney, E. Cottesloe, L.
Scarbrough, E. Glenesk, L. Suffield, L.
Selborne, E. Harlech, Wimborne, L.
Stamford, E. Harris, L. Zouche of Harynworth, L.
Stanhope, E. Hylton, L.