§ MR. WEGUELINsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Government has entered into a Contract with the Millwall Ironworks Company (Limited) for the manufacture of a considerable quantity of Gun Iron; whether there was any reason for the Government in this case differing from the usual practice of putting such Contracts up to public competition, and whether it was done in pursuance of a suggestion made by a Mr. Hughes, said to be Manager of that Company, on the occasion of a deputation waiting on Earl Derby to represent the state of distress in East London; and, if so, whether the Government are aware that an equal amount of distress exists among 1917 the Ironworkers in other districts; whether he will consent to lay a Copy of the Contract in question upon the table of the House, and will state whether he has satisfied himself as to the capability of the said Company to execute it; and whether he is aware that the representation of Mr. Hughes that the Company would at once take on 1,000 workmen was unauthorized and exaggerated?
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONSir, the hon. Gentleman is, of course, aware that this transaction took place before I assumed my present office; but I have reason to believe that it arose partly in consequence of a communication made from the Treasury to the War Office, and partly from the desire to find some employment, if it could properly be done, to persons suffering from distress in the East of London. My answer to the first part of the question is that a contract was entered into to the extent of 1,000 tons of iron with the Millwall Company. In reply to the second question, I think that the hon. Gentleman has too much assumed that this was a departure from the usual custom with respect to putting up such contracts to public competition. The facts are, that the War Office called upon several selected companies for a supply of iron, the object being to obtain the superior class of iron necessary for making guns. The Millwall Company sent in the lowest tender. It was accepted, and they were employed. They performed their contract well, and this order for 1,000 ions of iron was, in fact, only a renewal and continuance of a pre-existing contract between these parties. I have no objection to lay a copy of the contract on the table. With respect to the last question, I believe the hon. Gentleman has been misled as to the number of persons that it was said would be employed if the order were given. I am informed that Mr. Hughes never held out any such expectations, and that his statement was that the order would bring such a number of workmen into employment as would relieve the parish of the maintenance of 1,000 persons, including their families. The difference between 1,000 workmen and 1,000 persons, including the families of the workmen, is a very material one.
§ MR. WEGUELINsaid, he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman was satisfied that the Millwall Ironworks Company were in a position to execute the contract?
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONThat sub- 1918 ject has been considered. The company have been carrying out the contract up to this time in a manner perfectly satisfactory to the War Office, and the result of inquiries on the spot is that we have no reason to doubt their competency.
MR. GLADSTONEThe right hon. Gentleman has been understood to say that the Treasury made the recommendation to the War Office that there should be an expenditure of public money with a view to relieve the distress in the East of London. I wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman has been correctly understood; and, if so, whether he will lay the correspondence on the table?
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONAs I have already stated, whatever took place on this matter occurred before I came into my present office. I have reason to believe that very strong representations were made to the Government as to the great distress prevailing at the East End of London. Inquiries were made during the time I held the office of First Lord of the Admiralty as to whether iron ships could not be ordered with a view to relieve that distress. I believe that no direct recommendation was made, but that a suggestion came from the Treasury whether it would be consistent with the practice of the War Office to give an extended order to the Millwall Ironworks Company?