§ MR. HANBURY (Preston)I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what firm or firms have had accoutrements or other work for the British Army made in French prisons; why the Director of Contracts, in the recent Departmental Report, considers that such a fact "hardly calls for remark"; whether this fact was known to the War Office at the time, or when did it become known; what penalty was inflicted; what contracts have since been given to these firms; what are the present rules under which "it could not occur again"; have the firms which so offended now factories of their own; and, even in the case of contractors having factories of their own, how often has any penalty 1092 been enforced for non-compliance with such rules?
§ * THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,) Lincolnshire, HorncastleI answered a similar question last year. The case referred to occurred in 1885–6 when, at a time of great pressure, the contractors, Messrs. Pullman, had a small portion of the whole contract done in a military fort where French prisoners are detained. The matter was fully explained last year. The facts were not known at the War Office till two years after the contract had expired, and the practice ceased. At the time foreign competition had been invited for War Office orders of this kind; therefore it would be difficult to object to English material being stitched abroad.
§ MR. HANBURYDo I understand that, according to the information supplied to the War Office, Messrs. Pullman are the only firm which is having accoutrements or other work for the British Army made in French prisons; because my information is to the contrary effect?
§ * MR. E. STANHOPEI know of no other firm.
§ MR. HANBURYHas not the right hon. Gentleman power to punish the persons who have entered into these contracts?
§ * MR. E. STANHOPEI think not. I did not make the contracts. They were entered into in 1885. I believe there is nothing in them which would enable me to enforce a penalty.