§ MR. HOOPER (Cork, S.E.)asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he is aware that Sergeant Hooly, 2nd West Suffolk Regiment, canteen steward of Cork garrison, was dismissed from that position for having accepted a cheque for £24 for his own use (after he had been in office only two months) from the contractors for the supply of the garrison canteen, namely, the Dublin Branch of the Junior Army and Navy Stores; whether, in consequence of this discovery, the contract was withdrawn from the Junior Army and Navy Association, and entrusted to a local firm; whether this Association and the Army and Navy Co-operative Association supply most of the regiments in Ireland; whether the shareholders of these Associations consist largely of military officers; whether 756 he is in possession of any evidence to show that the men of the Army would prefer to have the option of dealing locally for their supplies; whether he will have an independent investigation into the present system; and, whether he will have a Return presented to this House of the names of all Army officers who are shareholders in the Supply Associations above mentioned?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN)&c.) (Stirling,It is reported by the General Officer at Cork that the garrison canteen sergeant was found to be in possession of a cheque for £23 10s. from the Junior Army and Navy Stores, which he alleged was intended as a present to him. The man was dismissed from his position, and the Committee of the canteen are stated to have transferred their custom from the Junior Army and Navy Stores to some other quarter. With regard to the remainder of the series of Questions put by the hon. Member, I must disclaim any official knowledge. The affairs of canteens are managed by their own committees—an arrangement believed to be very acceptable to the soldiers. It is well known that a large number of the canteens obtain their supplies in whole or in part from one or other of the large Co-operative Societies; but I should be unwilling to seem even to limit their independence by requiring Returns upon the subject. I believe that many officers are shareholders of Co-operative Societies; but I have no Returns on the subject which I could present to the House. I may point out that, under the Companies Act, every Limited Liability Company is bound to have a list of shareholders accessible to individual members of the public who may desire to consult it.
§ MR. HOOPERIn consequence of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, I wish to ask a Question which is expunged from the Question which appeared on the Paper, which I humbly consider I am entitled to put. I wish to ask——
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! The hon. Member is not entitled to put that Question.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH (Hants, Basingstoke)inquired whether the right hon. Gentleman had received remonstrances from the traders of Aldershot complaining of officers being shareholders 757 in the Army and Navy Co-operative Stores, and having exclusive dealings with the stores as against the traders in the town; and, whether a Return would not be procured showing the names of the officers who were at that particular period at Aldershot, and who were shareholders in the Army and Navy Stores?
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANThat is a statement referring to a cognate case, but not the same case. I believe it is true that in a private conversation my right hon. Predecessor did give what information he could obtain as to the names of certain officers who were shareholders; but it was not the kind of information which can be furnished as a Return to this House, because we have no special means of obtaining it, and it is information which is open to any member of the public who chooses to inquire. With regard to the definite Question put by the right hon. Gentleman, I may say that such a Memorial as he speaks of has been received, and no doubt the whole question of the canteen arrangements and their dealing with stores is a fit matter for debate; but I can hardly be expected, in answer to a Question, to give an opinion on the subject.
§ MR. HOOPERArising out of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, I should like to know whether it may not become the duty of Army officers to sit in judgment on complaints as to the quality of goods supplied by Associations such as these in which they themselves may be shareholders?
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANI take it that it would be very improper if they did so; but I am not aware that it is the case.
§ MR. HOOPERBut will the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether it is the case?
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANThat is the very thing I cannot do. I can inquire which officers have sat on the complaints; but I can have no definite official knowledge whether these officers are or are not shareholders in the Co-operative Societies which supplied the goods complained of. Judging from my general knowledge of the subject, which is not very deep, I believe the pecuniary interest of any individual officer in any of these Societies is extremely limited.
§ MR. HOOPERIn consequence of the highly unsatisfactory replies of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to give Notice that on going into Committee of Supply I will call attention to the alleged coercion of committees of garrison canteens by officers to deal with Co-operative Societies.