§ 25. Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether a letter dated 30th December, 1914, together with a specification and offer of Colt-pattern machine guns, addressed to Major Banks, at the War Office, was received from Mr. F. Andrews written from the Carlton Hotel, Pall Mall; whether the same tender was personally presented to Major Banks by Mr. H. J. Blanch on the afternoon of 30th December; whether on 31st December Mr. Andrews, accompanied by Mr. Warwick Wright, had an interview with Major Banks on this matter; whether an undertaking to deliver 10,000 or 20,000 machine guns under a surety bond, 2,000 of these guns within four weeks, six weeks if the guns were recalibrated for British service ammunition, and thereafter at the rate of 2,000 guns per month, was made; whether, in the second week in January, Major-General von Donop at an interview had this offer before him; and whether he stated these guns were not required?
§ Mr. FORSTERThe statements made in the question are substantially correct. As I informed my hon. Friend on Monday last, various offers for contracts to manufacture Colt guns were received at different dates. These offers were declined because, although the gun is a good weapon under ordinary conditions, it was not considered suitable for our purpose, and I would point out that if the gun is not suitable 822 it really does not matter how many offers were made, or when they were made, or who made them. It was considered at the time that the money and plant might be more usefully employed in the manufacture of machine guns of a type more suitable to our requirements.
§ Sir A. MARKHAMDoes not my right hon. Friend know that in reply to my first question he stated that they had no trace of the offer, and is he aware that this gun is now being used by the French Government and the Canadian contingent at the front, and that the officers of the Canadian contingent, together with the officer commanding the Ordnance Department, made a test of this gun, and have reported in the highest praise of it?
§ Mr. FORSTERIt must be obvious to my hon. Friend that the question of deciding between the merits of the Colt gun and any other machine gun must of necessity rest with those who are technically responsible. In regard to the question as to my lack of information when I replied to my hon. Friend's question on Monday last, the blame is partly his and partly mine. It is his so far as his question refers to this contract, which he said was offered in February, when, as a matter of fact, it was offered in December. But it is mine in so far as when the contract could not be traced amongst the records of the February offers, I said, in view of the pressure which existed at the War Office, I did not consider it necessary to make further investigations, since the offer had been declined on the ground of the unsuitability of the gun.
§ Sir A. MARKHAMIs the hon. Gentleman aware that Sir Edward Ward made this offer in February on behalf of the manufacturer of this gun, and, therefore, that I put the question to him for that reason?
§ Mr. FORSTERMy hon. Friend is mistaken in his dates again. It is very easy to criticise the action which may have been taken by those responsible six months after the date on which that action was taken, but I really must ask my hon. Friend and other Members of this House to bear in mind that those questions had to be faced under conditions which were at that time totally different from those which prevail now.