§ 23. Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the Report of the Military Court of Inquiry, of which the Attorney-General formed one, into certain matters connected with the British Empire Committee is being further considered by the War Office, in view of the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions to take no action; and whether, the Court having found that Messrs. Ernest Devereux and T. Watson made an unwarrantable use of their positions as members of the British Empire Committee to obtain money from a Mr. Hand, and that no new contracts of any kind ought to have been given to them, Messrs. Devereux and Watson have been black listed or are directly or indirectly concerned in any Government contracts at the present time?
§ Mr. TENNANTThe names of the two gentlemen referred to have never been included in the War Office list of contractors, and, so far as is known, neither of them is directly or indirectly concerned in any War Office contract at the present 456 time. The question of the removal from the War Office list of the Construction and Contracts Company, in which they are interested, is at present under consideration. Apart from the erection of the hutments for the Empire Battalion, this firm has held no contracts for the Department. For the rest, the Army Council, after giving full consideration to the Report of the Court of Inquiry, have taker all the action which they consider necessary in the matter.
§ Mr. HOGGEWhat is the use of the Government holding a Military Inquiry in which the Attorney-General in the present Cabinet comes to the decision that these men have obtained money by threats in the course of doing public duty, if no further action is taken?
§ Mr. TENNANTMy hon. Friend is, of course, well aware that he is putting to me a question which involves another Department of the State; therefore I am very reluctant to give him a full answer. I am quite sure he realises, as well as I do, that that is the case. We have to place ourselves in the hands of our advisers in relation to prosecutions and abide by their decisions. That has been done in this case. When my hon. Friend asks me what is the use of holding a Military Court of Inquiry and then doing nothing, I think that is a very wrong method of describing the action—the very drastic action—which the War Office has already taken in this matter.
§ Mr. HOGGEDoes not my right hon. Friend feel that the War Office cannot be sufficiently protected when, after the Attorney-General comes to that decision, no prosecution is taken?
§ Mr. TENNANTIt is not really for me to answer a question of that kind; it is quite another Department who advises the War Office, and we have to abide by their advice.