§ SIR HENRY HAVELOCKasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, when the judges in appeal ordered judgment to be entered for the Crown in the case of Thomas against the Queen, they did not do so on grounds which had no relation whatever to the question of Mr. Lynall Thomas's claim to the origination of the System of heavy rifled ordnance, of which the 7-inch 7-ton gun was stated to be the standard gun?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)Sir, on behalf of the Secretary of State for War, I beg to say that, in the case of "Thomas v. the Queen," the verdict which was found for the plaintiff was based upon the assumption that a contract had been entered into by the War Office, on behalf of Her Majesty and Mr. Lynall Thomas, and that under such contract the latter was to receive reward and compensation in certain events. Upon an application, however, to the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court, the Court held that there was no evidence of any contract having been made, and ordered that judgment should be entered for the Crown. Against this decision Mr. Thomas might have appealed; but he did not do so. The question whether Mr. Lynall Thomas was or was not the originator of the system of heavy rifled ordnance was not involved in the decision of the Queen's Bench.