HC Deb 28 June 1888 vol 327 cc1560-1
MR. HANBURY (Preston)

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the fact that helmets, knapsacks, gaiters, pouches, and other accoutrements, have been for about 18 months, and still continue to be, manufactured for the British Army in a foreign prison by a large contractor still on the Government list of selected firms at prices much below even those paid to sweaters; whether the condemned mule traces at Woolwich are now being fitted with new iron squares; and, if so, whether it is intended to issue them to the troops in the event of war; whether saddles are now being padded with what is described by an eye-witness as filthy, rotten hair out of condemned hospital beds; and, whether he has consulted the Law Officers of the Crown as to the possibility of proceeding against contractors who supply, and officials who admit, bad stores under the existing law?

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE) (Lincolnshire, Horncastle)

In answer to the first Question, the War Office has no reason for suspecting the existence of any such practice as that referred to. If the hon. Member will give me privately the name of the contractor he refers to, further inquiry shall be made. In answer to the second Question, no condemned mule traces are being fitted with iron squares, or are to be issued to the troops. In answer to the third Question, no saddles are being padded with filthy, rotten hair out of condemned hospital beds. I should like to add that the hon. Member, by holding personal communication with disaffected workmen at Woolwich, is doing his best to make the maintenance of discipline impossible.

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman is exceeding the usual limits of an answer to a Question.

MR. E. STANHOPE

I at once bow to your ruling, Sir. I withdraw at once this statement, which I recognize I should not have made I Wish add, however, that the duty of any man there, if he thinks he sees anything going on which is detrimental to the Public Service, is to report it to Colonel Barrington. In answer to the last Question, there can, I think, be little doubt as to the existing law; but I am taking further advice upon the subject.

MR. HANBURY

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether he knows that I have communicated with anybody whatever except the man Dunn, who disclosed the whole of this scandal?

MR. E. STANHOPE

I am not able to express any opinion about that; but as the hon. Member refers to an eyewitness as to what took place recently, I have no doubt the information has been communicated to him.

MR. HANBURY

Is the right hon. Gentleman justified in describing Dunn and Moody as disaffected workmen?

MR. E. STANHOPE

I have not done so in any way.

MR. HANBURY

But the right hon. Gentleman distinctly said that I had been in communication with disaffected workmen.

MR. E. STANHOPE

Owing to your ruling, Sir, I am not able to deal with that particular part of my answer.

MR. HANBURY

I shall refer to this matter when the Vote for the Director of Contracts comes on.