§ 66. Mr. NIELDasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the proper official to whom to send a Report on matters concerning a battalion within the area of the Eastern Command is the General Officer Commanding within that area; whether General Woollcombe was that officer on 30th October, 1914; and, if so, for what reason has the War Office remained in ignorance of the substance of that Report?
§ Mr. TENNANTThe answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I understand that General Woollcombe was General Officer Commanding-in-Chief the Eastern Command on the date mentioned. The Report in question has not yet been submitted to the War Office.
§ 67. Mr. NIELDasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that dishonourable imputations and suggestions of corruption are being made against distinguished officers and also against Members of this House in relation to the Empire battalion of the Royal Fusiliers; and whether he will, without further delay, make himself acquainted with the report presented to General Woollcombe on 30th October, 1914, by the Committee and communicate the substance thereof to the House?
§ Mr. TENNANTAny imputations which have been made have been in the nature of innuendo and have not been definitely formulated. Until the investigation which is in progress is completed, I cannot announce what action I shall take.
§ Mr. NIELDMay I ask whether the Tight hon. Gentleman will be in a position to-morrow to discuss the whole matter upon the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill? I desire to take this discussion before the Adjournment.
§ Mr. TENNANTWhat I mean is that there have been no formulated charges. I understand my hon. Friend and other hon. Members hold strong views as to what has occurred, but, so far as I am aware, no one has formulated any definite charge. If my hon. Friend desires to do so, it is quite within his competence. With regard to the question whether I shall be able to deal 1146 with this matter to-morrow, I think it is impossible. We are carrying on an investigation into the circumstances attending the raising of this battalion, contracts, and various other charges that have been made, and it is impossible to complete a very difficult task, involving the search of documents and the taking of evidence, in a very short time, and therefore I shall ask the hon. Gentleman to have patience.
§ Mr. NIELDIs it not true that a long typewritten precis giving the whole of these facts was lodged with General Woollcombe, on the 9th of February, for communication to the War Office?
§ Mr. HOGGEMy charges are quite definite. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Messrs. Devereux and Watson accepted illicit commissions from the contractor to this battalion? The War Office know that, and Devereux is still on the War Office List and is evidently not to be removed.
§ Mr. TENNANTI am glad to have it quite "pat," if I may say so.
§ Mr. TENNANTNow we know where we are. As regards the hon. Member's question it may be true, as he states, and no doubt is, as he knows, that this report was handed in to General Woollcombe, but it is quite a different thing to hand in a report to a general officer commanding-in-chief of a district, and handing in a report to the War Office. It does not happen to have reached me until this morning.
§ 68. Mr. NIELDasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Report of the British Empire Committee upon the question of alleged illicit commissions was handed to General Woollcombe on 30th October, 1914, and when he first became aware of that fact; and whether he has made himself acquainted with the substance of such Report?
§ Mr. TENNANTI am not aware, on what date the British Empire Committee handed the Report mentioned by the hon. Member to General Woollcombe. As I have already stated, it has not yet been submitted to the War Office and I have not had an opportunity of making myself acquainted with its contents.
§ Mr. TENNANTI think that is quite true, but no Report has yet reached the War Office, although I have, by the courtesy of Sir Bindon Blood, been furnished with a copy.
§ Mr. HOGGEIf there is a Committee of Inquiry, what charges will be inquired into seeing that the right hon. Gentleman says that no charges have been made?
§ Mr. TENNANTThe inquiry will be made into the aspersions cast upon the honour of those mentioned in the questions.
§ Mr. TENNANTI informed my hon. Friend two or three days ago that we were inquiring into this matter.
§ Mr. TENNANTI shall give that matter my serious consideration.
§ Mr. HOGGEOn account of these answers I must, in any case, state my case to-morrow, if I am allowed, on the Third Heading of the Consolidated Fund Bill.
§ 79. Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can inform the House of the use to which money paid by a contractor to battalion funds is put; and whether he can say if any such money was paid by the contractor Devereux to the funds of the Empire Battalion Royal Fusiliers?
§ Mr. TENNANTIt is usual for the contractor to pay a proportion of profits to regimental funds. I cannot answer the second part of the question until further investigation has been made. This is now in progress.
§ Mr. TENNANTI cannot do anything till the investigation is complete; it is not possible for me to say how long that may be?
§ Mr. TENNANTIt is being made Departmentally.
§ 80. Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War the circumstances in which Lieutenant and Quartermaster Frank Willard, 17th (Service) Empire Battalion Royal Fusiliers (City of London Regiment) was removed from the Army?
§ Mr. TENNANTThe officer commanding 17th Service Battalion Royal Fusiliers, being dissatisfied with the manner in which Quartermaster and hon. Lieutenant F. Willard performed his duties, preferred charges against him. These were investigated by a Court of Inquiry assembled under the order of the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief Eastern Command. The proceedings and findings of the Court having been carefully reviewed by the Army Council, it was considered necessary in the interests of discipline that Lieutenant and Quartermaster Willard should be removed from the Army.
§ Mr. HOGGECan the right hon. Gentleman say if any evidence was taken from the men of the regiment?
§ Mr. TENNANTNo, Sir. I have not seen the proceedings of the Court of Inquiry, but I imagine that evidence has been taken from all sources which were considered desirable to get information from.
§ Mr. HOGGEIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole regiment regrets this man having been removed?
§ Mr. TENNANTI am not aware of that.
§ 81. Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether General Woollcombe was informed by General Sir Bindon Blood, chairman of the British Empire Committee, of the charge preferred against two members of the Committee of having demanded and received money from the equipment contractor; whether he was also informed that the Committee had given the contracts for victualling and hutting to the two members of the Committee; and whether, in view of this, did he advise the return of these contracts to the two members, as reported to the general Committee of the Empire Committee?
§ Mr. TENNANTI understand Sir Bindon Blood did make a communication to General Woollcombe, but as it was verbal I am uncertain as to its nature. I believe General Woollcombe was informed regarding the allocation of the contracts for hutting and messing and that he told 1149 Sir Bindon Blood that the huts were progressing very well and were in his opinion superior to any he had seen. He further stated that he saw no reason for breaking the contracts for hutting and messing. Since I drafted that answer to the question, by the courtesy of Sir Bindon Blood I have received a copy of the report which he furnished to General Woollcombe. I have not had time to make myself fully aware of its contents.