case were wrong. One contractor, who was it was shipped in good condition. and defended by Mr. Nepean, at the expense had had its bulk samples examined. A of this officer, had since been struck off baker was allowed to attempt to utilize the list of contractors, which certainly the flour for baking purposes by mixtold rather against that particular in- ing it with flour purchased on the dividual. It proved to him (Dr. Cameron) spot; but it was found to be absothat the matter ought to be probed to lutely worthless, and the whole lot was the bottom, and that there should not sold for the purpose of converting it be constant attempts to burke any dis- into starch. Now, there was no article cussion or inquiry in regard to it. It in the whole list of articles sent out in would be necessary to go into the whole regard to which the Government ought question in order to rectify the system. He, to have had more experience than flour. therefore, intended to move a reduction The Navy was constantly in the habit of the Vote, of which he had given No- of sending out flour to hot climates, and tice, in order that he might fully im- the authorities knew exactly the kind of press upon the Government the point flour which would keep, and the Comwhich he wished to raise. He, there- missariat officers were in the habit of fore, proposed to reduce the sum for making contracts all over the world in provisions by £10,000, and the sum for order to secure good flour for the use of forage by £20,000; and he thought he the Army. Then, again, the authorities could show that in the contracts en- ought to have been warned against the tered into the country had lost £10,000 kind of flour sent out in this case, beon the contract for flour, and £20,000 cause the flour sent out by the same Deon the contract for hay. In respect of partment in the Chinese War had gone those two items-the flour purchased wrong. The Naval authorities had not for the Army in Egypt amounted to 70 been consulted in the matter. The Comdays' supply; and he asked the attention missariat General's advice was not taken. of the right hon. Gentleman the Secre- He recommended one course, and an entary of State for War to the facts he tirely different course was adopted. The proposed to lay before the Committee, flour was bought through the means of a because he was certain that, as a man broker instead of being bought by the well acquainted with business proceed- skilled officials of the Department. That ings, and the manner in which a busi- was the most absurd manner of conductness contract ought to be carried out, ing business ever heard of. The broker the right hon. Gentleman would be of who purchased the flour received a comopinion that the course pursued in this mission of 11 per cent. When contracts matter was absolutely indefensible. for provisions were made through the There were 75 cases of flour purchased Commissariat the contracts themselves for the Army in Egypt, and sent out in contained the most stringent provisions. five different consignments, which con- When a contract was made for flour for sisted of six different brands. The first use in hot climates the contractor was was sent out in the Austria on the 24th required to guarantee that it was of a of July. On the 21st of August, Sir quality that would keep. But in the John Adye sent it home, saying that it case to which he referred no stipulation was utterly unfit for use, and never ap- of the kind was made. The regular peared to have been good. On the 7th course of buying from a broker was deof September, the Arethusa took out an- scribed by the Director of Contracts. other consignment, and Sir John Adye He saidreported that it was in no better condition. He said that the flour taken by that ship was utterly destroyed, and that the greater portion had arrived in hard solid blocks. The entire contents of a sack, in many cases, were a hard unbroken lump. Other witnesses described the flour as being in the form of lumps, like pillars of plaster of Paris. A telegram had been sent to Sir John Adye, saying that the flour had been selected especially for its keeping qualities, that Dr. Cameron "The Department sent for a sample, and when the sample was approved the broker was ordered to buy at a certain price on condition that the bulk agreed with the sample.' One would think that it was of some little importance, under such circumstances, to see the sample and compare it with the bulk. That was a very elementary proposition which would command universal consent; but in the purchases made by the War Office it would appear that the authorities never saw the samples at all except in one case out of the six brands ordered. There were six different brands of flour purchased, and in only one instance was the sample submitted to the Director of Contracts, or the Director of Supplies and Transports, and in that case the sample consisted of a very few ounces which had been so kept and kicked about the office that when it was wanted for analysis the chemist said it was altogether unfit for the purpose. No other sample of the remaining four consignments was examined by the War Office officials. More samples were said to have been taken, but they were not submitted to the War Office, and when they were wanted for purposes of comparison with the flour which turned out to be bad they were not forthcoming. He was told that in purchasing flour it was most important to analyze it in order to ascertain what percentage of moisture it contained. Mr. Lawson, the Assistant Director of Supplies, told the Committee that that course was not pursued in this case, and that there had been no analysis made or estimate taken in order to ascertain what per centage of moisture there was in the flour sent in. A certificate, however, was given which was to the effect that the flour was in good condition when shipped; but, as a matter of fact, that certificate was not from any Government official, but from persons employed in the docks who were employes of the Dock Company. The Government broker who bought the flour was, as he had said, paid by commission; but there was no stipulation whatever with him that he should not purchase his own goods. It appeared that in this case he was not an importer of flour, and, therefore, it was possible that such a stipulation might have been unnecessary; but there was an importer of oats on commission for the Government who was in a very different position, and there was nothing to prevent that broker from buying his own oats at the market price and getting the Government commission for purchasing them. He was told that there was nothing to prevent an individual in that position from obtaining a commission as seller as well as buyer. In no case was the transaction conducted in a businesslike way or in such a way as an important Government contract ought to be carried out. He was told that the loss in this instance had not been very great, as the Government had managed to make a good sale of the starch into which the flour was converted in Egypt. But when the difficulty was to get through the work of furnishing supplies for the Army as rapidly as possible, surely that was not a time for exporting flour from England for the purpose of converting it into starch in Egypt. The direct loss in money, besides what was realized from the flour afterwards, might be considered also in conjunction with the freight, and the good flour on the spot that was lost in trying to mix it with the bad flour imported; and, in this case, there had been a direct loss upon this particular item of the sum by which he proposed to move the reduction of the Vote-namely, £10,000. He made the Government a present of the freight. All this business was simply the result of blundering, and blundering of the grossest kind. The Navy had sent out a quantity of flour by way of testing it, and it answered perfectly well. Moreover, Australian flour was sent out, and it also kept well in the Egyptian climate. The blundering was of the most unmitigated kind; but, notwithstanding all the exposure about Egypt, the same broker had been employed to conduct their contracts for the Soudan. In regard to the hay, a contractor at Liverpool contracted for upwards of 2,000 tons of hay, and received for it upwards of £20,000 sterling. There were differents contracts entered into at short intervals at different prices, and there was a great diversity of evidence between the Director of Contracts and the Director of Supplies and Transports as to who was responsible for the contracts. The Director of Contracts claimed that he was only responsible for one contract, and that, with regard to the other contracts, the Department of Supplies and Transports entered into them, and not himself. Evidence was given that, with regard to the first contract, which was to be for prime upland hay, no stipulation as to its age was made. The words "old hay" did not appear in the contract at all. There was a lame explanation of the omission; but it was admitted that the proper thing to have inserted would have been the word "old," especially as the dispute afterwards arose on that particular point. The hay was inspected by a Commissa riat officer; but it was not inspected by | also the opinion of Cavalry officers and a Commissariat officer appointed by the others, who gave a written or verbal opiDepartment, but by one appointed by nion upon the subject. To make the the General Officer of the district. The matter short, he might say that there Commissariat officer of the Department was no question, from the evidence given was at the time occupied with duties at before the Committee, that the hay was, Chester which took up his entire time. to a very large extent, mildewed, rotten, That officer had been obliged to work full of rushes, and moss, and lowland Saturdays and Sundays, early and late, meadow grasses. 500 tons of the hay and even then was only able to make were condemned at Liverpool and sold one or two perfunctory visits to the place at a great loss, so utterly unfit was it where the hay was to be compressed and for service even at home. A quantity delivered. That officer, although not of it was used as forage for mules. That an officer of the Commissariat Depart- did not pass through the accounts as ment, was in constant communication having been lost; and other portions with the Director of Supplies and Trans- were utilized as bedding for horses, ports. The price of the hay was high; some of it having been actually sent out most of it was bought at £9 per ton. It to Egypt as bedding, although the was felt that that price required some straw of that country could be obtained justification, and the Director of Con- for very much less money. One thing tracts and the Director of Supplies and was perfectly certain-that the whole of Transports were asked how it was that this hay, with the single exception of they accounted for the price. The an- one lot which was favourably reported swer was that it was very easy to account upon-the whole of this £20,000 worth for it, because as fast as the hay was of hay was entirely unfit for the purbought it was taken away to be pressed, pose for which it was bought-namely, and was delivered pressed, the cost of for forage for horses; and yet the pressing being set down at £2 a-ton. It contractor was complimented for the was said that 30s. per ton at least would manner in which he had performed have to be allowed as a general charge his contract, and he was a gentleman for pressing; but it so happened that who held Army contracts to the extent of fault was found with the way in which £1,200 per month. There was one point this particular hay was pressed, and upon which he-the Army contractorsome evidence was taken as to the cost and Mr. Nepean differed. Mr. Cousins of pressing it in a perpetual hay-press- stated-"That at a recent interview ing machine. The Woolwich authori- he had had with Mr. Nepean, that genties sent up a tabulated statement of the tleman had complimented and defended cost which would have been incurred by him." But Mr. Nepean denied that anyadopting that plan, and, instead of thing of the kind had occurred. The late amounting to 30s. a-ton, it was found Surveyor General of the Ordnance (Mr. to be only 48. a-ton when done by a Brand) told them the other night that perpetual hay-pressing machine. Mr. he had from the first admitted that the Cousins the contractor who sold the flour was bad, and that the hay was bad. hay to the Government-stated that it If such an admission was present in the was purchased from 100 different sources; mind of the hon. Member he had cerbut out of all the Reports upon it which tainly managed to conceal it to a concame before the Committee there was siderable extent. During the evidence only one that was favourable. One given before the Committee every atportion appeared to have been good, tempt was made to defend the contracts and was approved of; but the rest was until a very late period in the investicondemned in the strongest and most gation. The Committee were told that unqualified terms by everyone who gave the hay had been packed in wet weather, evidence in regard to it. If it were ne- and a table was sent in showing the cessary, he would quote what the diffe- number of wet days which occurred at rent officers had stated on the subject; Liverpool while the hay was been comwhat the Commissariat General said; pressed. They were told that the hay what a subsequent Commissariat General had been deteriorated in consequence of said; what all the Assistant Commissariat its exposure to the Egyptian climate; Generals said; how it was criticized by and it was only under the pressure of the principal Veterinary officers; and cross-examination that the Committee Dr. Cameron ان were able to obtain an admission that | One case was still sub judice, and therefore the wet weather in England and the dry it would be improper to give an opinion weather in Egypt could not account for upon it; and another-the case of Toomer rushes, moss, and lowland meadow had already been decided, and decided grasses forming so large a portion of the against the War Office, in the Westminster hay. They were told that no steps had County Court. In the latter case, the been taken for the recovery of the hay was not rejected as bad, but because £20,000 which had been paid to the man it was required for a particular purpose who had sent in rubbishing materials for which it was not fitted. There was that were not at all in accordance with a considerable amount of clover in the his contract. They were told that it was hay, which prevented its being used for not until a comparatively late period pressing; while, in the second place, the that the officials obtained any knowledge majority of the bales were of the wrong of the matter; that when the disclosures size and shape, and would not fit the came out before the Committee the mat- pressing machine. The Government, ter was looked into, and that it had therefore, refused to take it, and it bebeen resolved to await the result of the came necessary to issue fresh tenders for Committee's Report. As a matter of fact, hay. During the interval the market the Committee never did report; but, price had gone up considerably, and that on the contrary, their inquiry was burked. which was purchased to replace the hay They were now told that Mr. Cousins returned was bought at a considerably had been struck off the list of contractors; enhanced price. As regarded the hay but that could only have been a month and flour sent out to Egypt in 1882, or two before he gave evidence at the and to which reference had again been very latest. Up to that time he had made, he was still of the same opinion been enjoying permanent contracts to as that which he had expressed some the tune of £1,200 a-month. He (Dr. weeks ago-that both the hay and the Cameron) wished to know whether any- flour were bad. There could be no thing further was to be done? It ap- doubt that both were of an inferior peared to him that there could not be quality and unfit to be used. The loss, the smallest doubt that the hay was not however, was not in reality so great as up to the contract. It was not prime the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameupland hay of the best quality; and it ron) supposed. The quantity of hay appeared to him that it was the duty sent out from Liverpool during the Egypof the Government, under such circum-tian War was 978 tons, and of that stances, to bring an action against the contractor for the recovery of the money which had been paid to him under false pretences. The true facts of the case would then be brought out in all their nakedness, and the whole transaction would be then exposed, as in Toomer's case, and in the case of the York contractor. He believed that this was a very much worse case than that of Toomer, or of the York contractor, in both of which the Government had instituted an inquiry. There was no question about the villainous quality of the hay supplied as prime upland hay; and he would ask the Committee not to inflict the loss of £20,000, incurred by this transaction, on the country until at least some attempt was made to make the contractor refund the money which he had wrongfully received. THE SURVEYOR GENERAL OF ORDNANCE (Mr. GUY DAWNAY) said, that some of the cases to which reference had been made could not be gone into. amount over 400 tons had to be used for purposes other than of forage, entailing a loss upon the country of £8,200. The real cause of this loss was the inadequacy of the inspection. Unfortunately it was impossible for one Commissariat officer to travel through an enormous extent of country in order to inspect the hay in every instance, and to see that the article thus inspected was that which was actually compressed afterwards and sent. If they wished to prevent such regrettable incidents, in the future, the only remedy that he could see was to augment the number of the officers of the Commissariat Department. As to the flour, the loss entailed upon the country was much less than the hon. Member for Glasgow had mentioned. The absolute loss in the difference of price at which the flour was bought and sold did not exceed £6,000; but the fact still remained that the country had sustained injury in consequence of the inferiority of the flour sent out. 1,945,472 lbs, of flour were sent out to Egypt, and of that quantity 1,349,390 lbs. were proved to be of inferior quality, and could only be utilized for starch. It had been shown that it was a mistake to suppose that because flour was good in one part of Africa it was bound to be good in another. He could only attribute the fact that such views had ever been entertained to the geographical ignorance which existed upon the subject. He had himself been in both parts of that continent, and it was a mistake to suppose that because a certain kind of flour kept satisfactorily in the Transvaal or in Zululand, which was as regarded the coast line a most sub-tropical country, that it would answer equally well in the dry climate of the Suodan. The War Department recognized that errors had been committed, and it would take the lesson to heart and see that they did not occur again. MR. BRAND said, it had not been necessary for the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) to quote the evidence given before the Committee, because the hon. Gentleman knew very well that ever since that Committee sat, he (Mr. Brand) had admitted, both to the hon. Member and publicly in that House, that there were cases in which there had been a failure on the part of the War Department. But when the hon. Member spoke of the hay and flour, a distinction ought to be drawn. The first consignment of flour was the only lot about which complaint could be made; and in the case of the hay, only one consignment went bad-namely, a consignment bought at Liverpool, and no part of it was ever delivered to the troops during the campaign. He, therefore, wished to make these two reservations because they were facts. No doubt, a portion of the flour sent from this country went bad; but there was flour at hand to serve the purposes for which it was required, and some of the officers connected with the Expeditionary Force were of opinion that after the experience they had now gained it was impossible for any flour, sent out by ship to Egypt, to be delivered in that country in a good condition, and that it would be necessary, in future, to have recourse to local supplies. His hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow had gone into the case placed before the Select Committee in regard to the manner, mode, and method in Mr. Guy Dawnay which the flour was purchased. He (Mr. Brand) was speaking in the presence of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. W. H. Smith), who, he thought, would corroborate what he said from his own knowledgenamely, that the flour purchased by the War Department, and consigned to Egypt, was purchased in the same way that all such purchases were conducted, in the City, for foreign countries. It was the custom to employ brokers of well known respectability who possessed a good name in the City, and to buy by sample. He admitted that, as far as possible, it was desirable to follow the sample and to examine some portion of the bulk in order to see whether it was the same as the sample. Still, it was out of the ques tion to do that in every instance; and, on the whole, the best plan was to trust to the high character of the men they employed, and in that way to act upon the system adopted by the leading commercial firms in the City. His hon. Friend had not been quite correct in his statement with regard to the loss upon the Army flour; but he did not wish to make any particular point of it. He believed, however, that the loss had been £6,000, instead of £10,000 as stated by his hon. Friend. He would, however, pass by that subject with the single remark that they had now heard quite enough upon the question of the the flour sent out to Egypt during the war. He would like, however, to say a few words on the other question-namely, that of the hay. As to the supply of hay, he had to point out that there was nothing more difficult than to supply an Expeditionary Force sent out from this country with that article. After hearing the evidence given before the Select Committee, he had come to the conclusion that it would be impossible for the War Department to trust, in any way, to contractors for its supply, and the only way to meet the difficulty would be by extending the Government depôts for the purchase and storage and pressing of hay. It was desirable that they should get out of the system adopted at Woolwich, and have places for pressing hay in different parts of the country, and for developing, if possible, the supply at certain centres. The hon. Member for Glasgow had strongly condemned the late Government for having foreborne to prosecute a particular contractor. Now, that case |