HL Deb 27 March 1905 vol 143 cc1149-66
LORD MONKSWELL

My Lords, I rise, in accordance with the Notice standing in my name on the Paper, to call attention to the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General on the Stores Accounts of the Army as to the wastage of supplies in South Africa and elsewhere; and to move to resolve, "That, in the opinion of this House, immediate action should be taken to inquire into the cause of such wastage in the past, with a view to the preveation of further wastage in the future."

I daresay that to some noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite the terms of this Resolution may be somewhat familiar. I say at once that I am not the originator of it. I have taken great pains to draft my Notice in a form which precludes any suspicion of a hostile attitude towards His Majesty's Government, and with this object I selected a form of words which I found on the Notice Paper of the House of Commons, and which were made use of by a very staunch supporter of His Majesty's Government and a gentleman whose fidelity to the Government is beyond all suspicion, for during the last two or three years he has received the honour of knighthood for political services. I have transcribed word for word the Notice of Motion standing on the Paper of the House of Commons in the name of the hon. Gentleman in question, and I am bound to assume that the originator of this Motion meant what he said, and was desirous that Parliament should at the earliest possible moment consider the Stores Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and pass a Resolution inciting the Government to take immediate action thereon. But, my Lords, whatever his intention may have been, it is perfectly certain that the result of his notice of Motion was to prevent the House from having any opportunity of discussing this Report at all.

Now, it seems to me that when, at the instance, or with the consent, of Ministers a blocking Motion is put down in the House of Commons, it is the bounden duty of the Opposition in this House, in the interests of free speech, to transfer the blocking Motion which cannot be considered in the other House to this House, where it can be dealt with. On this side of the House our voting power is insignificant, but at all events we are free to say what we please on any subject we pleases which is not always the case in another place, and I think that is a right we ought to zealously guard. I know perfectly well that since putting down my Motion the Prime Minister has changed his attitude and has promised a day for discussing this question in the House of Commons. Hearing that the Prime Minister had promised a day I had some notion of withdrawing my Motion, but my friends on this side have urged me to bring it on all the same, regarding it as a matter which ought to be discussed in this House. I think I ought to tell the noble Earl the Under-Secretary—he may not be aware of a statement which has been made in the other House—that there will be some sort of Interim Report by the Public Accounts Committee published possibly before the end of May. I think that is the earliest moment at which it will be out, and I am told that the Report will be based upon evidence by Sir William Butler, who is now engaged in considering these matters.

I do not think the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for War will differ from me as to the principles which should guide us ii discussing the responsibility of the War Office in respect of the wastage of war stores. No war has ever been waged without wastage. Public opinion will, I am sure, be willing to make very great allowances in respect of loss occasioned by muddle and confusion in the case of a great war; but it will make these allowances on two conditions, first, that at the earliest possible moment a full and searching investigation is made into the causes of the loss; and, secondly, that where the existing system is found to be at fault it shall be at once remedied. I will presently come to the question as to how far these conditions have been complied with. Meanwhile I do not think the noble Earl will deny that after making all reasonable allowance, there still remains a good deal in the Report which requires to be explained.

The first thing I would observe is that the Auditor-General prefaces his Report with the statement that only certain portions of the Army accounts have been subjected to a detailed audit owing to the small staff available. I should like to hear what the noble Earl has to say as to this statement. Is the War Office going to see that the Auditor-General has a sufficient staff, and if not, why not?

Under the head of South African War Expenditure there is a balance in the Cape Paymaster's account of cash advanced, but not accounted for, of £588,294. In paragraph 62 (a) on page 231, the Auditor-General says with regard to that— In reply to inquiries, I have been informed by the War Office that this charge is for cash issued and not repaid, and that there is no documentary evidence to show how it was expended. He goes on to say— It is understood, however, that the money was largely used in the purchase of stores required as a working capital for the railway. Surely, my Lords, some sort of documentary evidence as to some part of this expenditure ought to be forthcoming. Again, on the next page, in paragraph 66, it is stated that a sum of £1,681,818 was paid to the British South Africa Company for the Rhodesian Field Force. Part of this money was paid in respect of mules. It is a very puzzling matter to understand what happened in regard to those mules. The Public Accounts Committee had this matter under consideration, and it is dealt with in their Report of last July. They say, on page 12— Nine hundred and ninety-nine mules were shipped from New Orleans, of which 158 died on the voyage, and the remaining 841 cannot be traced beyond Beira, where they were landed. They further add that— No Imperial officer was present at Beira for political reasons. On this matter the Public Accounts Committee say— Your Committee regard this experience as another object-lesson of the wastage and unsatisfactory results which must follow from entrusting the duties of the War Office in Army administration to amateur bodies such as the Yeomanry Committee and the South African Committee. Turning to the evidence produced before the Committee, it would seem that there is no absolute certainty that these mules ever left New Orleans or arrived at Beira. Questioned on this point, Sir Fleetwood Wilson said that the accounts given by the South African Committee— Would not help us to trace missing mules. It is quite possible, it is presumable, and there is no reason to question, that they did send the mules, but they were lost. Subsequently he said, with regard to these mules and stores landed at Beira— It is very difficult to say if they (the mules) were actually in anybody's charge in the true sense of the word. Again Mr. Chalmers says— There is a large amount of stores not accounted for, harness and stores of various kinds which remained in South Africa, amounting in value to £252,880. Those and also other supplies of provisions and forage are not yet accounted for in Supply Account. Since July the Auditor-General observes that a small portion of these stores have been imperfectly vouched for, and that is as far as we can get.

Under the head of "Sales of Surplus Supplies" the Auditor-General in last year's Report referred to certain large sales and repurchases of forage, apparently entailing considerable loss, which required explanation, but no explanation was forthcoming; and last March the Auditor-General returned to the charge and drew the attention of the War Office to the different rates at which similar stores brought to account in the same month had been sold to and purchased from Contractor A. There was no reply from the War Office. Soon afterwards the Auditor-General came across another instance of the same kind, where a contractor had supplied oats at 17s. 10d. per 1001bs. and bought them from the Army at the same station at 11s. per 100 1bs., and this transaction was accompanied by the remarkable statement that it was done— To enable him to carry out his contract. This statement naturally attracted the attention of the Auditor-General, but no answer to his query is forthcoming, and this amazing statement still remains upon record as the settled policy of the War Office without any explanation at all. I really think the Noble Earl the Undersecretary ought to give us some explanation of these words to-night. It would appear from them that it is the settled policy of the War Office to buy dearly and sell cheaply in order to benefit the contractor; but, of course, that cannot be, and I think we are entitled to know the true meaning of those words. A somewhat similar transaction with another firm has led to a like result—inquiries by the Auditor-General, but no answer. That makes four occasions on which no answer has been received. Again, another firm— Bought moat of the surplus articles at heavy losses to the War Office. Indeed, in some cases the Government actually received less than nothing for the articles sold, for the Customs duties amounted in some cases to more than the value of the articles. For instance, jam was sold at 2d. a tin containing a little over a pound, while the Customs duty was 2d. a pound, and to this the cost of railage has to be added. That was in Cape Colony. In Natal matters were even worse. There the Colony claims Customs duty in respect of jam at the rate of 2¼d. a 1b., while the jam was sold for 1⅙d. and 1½d. a 1b. I should like to know whether the colonies were pressed to reduce the Customs duty.

The War Office seems to have been done all round over jam. They were given short weight, and, having paid in Customs duty rather more than they got for it, they were further mulcted in the expense of carrying it by rail. It would have paid them better to have buried it. Surely there were several preferable courses open. The colonies might have been asked under the circumstances to forego part of the duty, for the jam was imported not to sell, but to give to our soldiers. If the colonies had refused we might have re-shipped the jam to England and sold it at home. The question of short weight in jam, which has been principally exercising the public mind, is thus stated by the Auditor-General on page 258, paragraph 19— It was noticed in the Durban Supply Account for July, 1903, that 337,704 1ba. of jam had been written off charge under the following circumstances. On the sale of surplus jam remaining on hand after the close of the war, the contractor who purchased it found that large quantities of tins contained only twelve ounces of jam; and as 1,350,816 of these tins were held on charge as containing one pound of jam each, it became necessary to write off charge 337,704 1bs. in respect of the short weight of four ounces in each tin. It was seen, on reference to some of the contracts for purchase of jam, that they included a provision that it should be supplied in tins containing one pound each. I therefore requested that information might be furnished as to the terms of the contracts in these cases, and as to the examination given to ensure that full contract weights were delivered; also whether any other cases of short weight had been brought to notice, and, finally, whether the deficiency was investigated at the time by a Court of Inquiry, and reported to the Treasury. To these inquiries, which were addressed to the War Office on 26th April, 1904, I have, up to the present, received no reply. I am told that the noble Earl the Under-Secretary will be able to offer to the House a satisfactory explanation, with regard to the short weight of jam. I am very glad to hear it, but I think the House is also entitled to some explanation as to why the queries of the Auditor-General, which were sent to the War Office on 26th April, have remained unanswered up to this time.

In the case of jam, there is this remarkable circumstance to be considered in addition to what I have already stated. It has been elicited from the Secretary of State that the jam was bought through the Agents-General of Australia. This is colonial preference with a vengeance, for Australia, so far from being a jam exporting country, does not produce enough jam for its own consumption, and imports jam and sweet-stuffs from England to the extent of £100,000 a year. Again, under the head of "Clothing Accounts," it seems that 20,000 surplus suits were sold by tender, and the Auditor-General remarks that the new suits did not even realise half the normal peace contract price paid for them,—viz., 13s. a suit. Therefore the suits were sold at between 6s. and 7s. each. Why, I ask, should they have been sold at this enormous sacrifice? Why could they not have been kept in stock till they were wanted? Under the head of "Ordnance Store Accounts" the Auditor-General observes that the Public Accounts Committee, in their Report last July, stated that no improved system of packing ammunition had yet been devised by the War Office, but the subject was under their consideration. It is apparently still under their consideration, for in answer to the inquiries of the Auditor-General on this point no replies have been received. Yet it is acknowledged that the deterioration in over 50,000,000 rounds of ammunition was to a great extent due to imperfect packing. It appears to me that the War Office have had plenty of time in which to devise some better means of packing.

I might multiply instances of the apparently reckless manner in which stores of every description were disposed of at what I must call rummage-sale prices, but I think I have said enough to show how serious the allegations are that the War Office have to meet. Large sums of money have been expended, and there is no evidence, or, at all events, no documentary evidence, to show how it has been expended. Eight hundred and forty-one mules have mysteriously disappeared and cannot be traced from the moment they were landed—if indeed they were ever landed at all, which, though probable, does not seem to be capable of strict proof. These mules, and stores of all kinds to a large amount, were landed under nobody's charge, and there is nobody responsible for their loss. Here the Public Accounts Committee put their finger on the weak spot, and, as we have seen, attribute the loss and confusion to the War Office having entrusted administrative duties to amateur bodies such as the South African Committee and the Yeomanry Committee. Then there are the sales of forage at 10s. and 11s. per 100 1bs., which seems in some cases to have been brought back again from the same contractor at the same station for 17s. 10d. and 17s. 8½d. per 100 1bs; and, as we have seen in one case, a truly amazing reason for this proceeding is given—namely, that it was done to enable the contractor to fulfil his contract.

The case of the jam is no less remarkable. In the first place, it is a strange proceeding to go to Australia to provide jam for British troops, inasmuch as Australia buys a good part of the jam she consumes from England, not producing sufficient for her own consumption, much less to export to South Africa. If it pays Australia to buy jam in England, surely it would pay us to export our own jam to South Africa. I do not see why the British taxpayer should be mulcted for the benefit of the Australian contractor. In the next place, on attempting to sell the surplus jam it was found that some contractors had given short weight, which the military authorities had never discovered. In this connection one would like to know what measures were taken to examine the stores and check the quantities. And, to crown all, a large quantity of this surplus jam was sold at a price which did not even suffice to pay the Cus'ons duty, let alone the railway carriage. This is not a creditable state of things. However much we may concede as extenuating circumstances as regards high prices given for stores wanted in an emergency, it is reasonable to expect that the sale of surplus stores should be carried on on something in the nature of business principles. Some of the transactions I have mentioned are not of a character that can be excused on the gound of campaigning emergencies, and even if this excuse were valid it would be subject to the two conditions I mentioned at the beginning—namely, first, that at the earliest possible moment a searching investigation should be made, and, secondly, that where the existing system has been found to be at fault it should be at once amended.

How stands the Government record with regard to these two conditions? The gravamen of the charge against the War Office is not so much that they did foolish things during the war in the matter of stores, but that after the war was over foolish proceedings went on occurring. Worse than that, the full and searching investigation which ought to have begun at once, was put off till the pressure of public opinion was too strong to be resisted, and, moreover, even when a weak point had teen discovered, the War Office did not always take the trouble to put matters right. For instance, in the case of the deterioration of ammunition by bad packing, in July last the War Office were engaged in considering a better system of packing, and they are still considering. Surely it is time they came to some conclusion in the matter. Again, take the case of jam. The War Office must have known for a long time, certainly over a year, that some contractors had given short weight, in some cases only 12 ozs. to the 1b. On April 26th last year the Auditor-General asked the War Office whether they were making any investigation. He received no answer. The Secretary of State was interrogated a few days ago, and his answer was that inquiries have been going on for four weeks; that is to say, no inquire at all was instituted for nearly a year after the Auditor-General had reminded the War Office of the fact and pressed them to make an inquiry. This is a very bad case, as it involves a charge of dishonesty; yet the Secretary of State when first questioned had not got so far in his inquiry as even to be able to give the names of the accused contractors. The inquiry should have been completed long ago, and the contractors either condemned or exonerated.

The excuse given by the Secretary of State for not concerning himself to identify the firms which supplied short weight was remarkable. He said— As the orders were placed with the colonial authorities through their Agents-General, the names of the colonial firms who enabled the Colonies to carry out their engagements did not concern the War Office. Surely it is the duty of the War Office to press for compensation from the defaulting contractors. I do not suppose for a moment that the Colonies desire to shield any delinquent contractor. Indeed, the Agents-General have very properly said that Australia is prepared to pay compensation if their contractors are shown to be in default. The House will observe that the importance of the Auditor-General's Report only began to dawn upon the War Office after it had become the occasion of inconvenient Questions being asked. At first the Prime Minister sheltered himself from discussion behind a blocking Motion, and it was only a very few days ago that he acknowledged the importance of the subject and promised a day for discussion. When Ministers can read a document like the Auditor-General's Report and discover nothing particular in it until they are toll, their perceptions must have become angularly obtuse.

It would seem that the ordinary administrative duties of the War Office have been for some time past carried out in a lax fashion. The heads of the Department have, it would seem, been too busily engaged in contriving grandiose schemes of Army reform to concern themselves about the humbler task of supervising the humdrum routine business of office, and that, I take it, has been at the root of the amazing state of things disclosed by the Report of the Auditor-General. The high authorities at the War Office are like the astronomer in the fable who, while gazing at the stars, fell into a well at his feet. The noble Earl will have to address himself to two direct questions. He must first deal with the muddle and confusion that reigned during the war and for some time after. His next task will be to justify the dilatory proceedings of the War Office, their neglect to answer the pressing questions of the Auditor-General, and the length of time they have taken to make such a simple reform as the devising of a system to pack ammunition which would do away with a great deal of the enormous waste suffered by its deterioration. My complaint is that they have not taken in hand such matters as this strenuously. They have been content to let things slide until public opinion has forcibly prodded them on. I think the House will be doing a service to the War Office and to the country by passing the Resolution I have put down on the Paper, the originator of which is, as I have said, a staunch supporter of His Majesty's Government. The passing of such a Resolution will stiffen the War Office in the good intentions which I give them the credit of having formed, and the action of your Lordships in applying this friendly stimulus will certainly commend itself to the public.

Moved to resolve,"That, in the opinion of this House, immediate action should be taken to inquire into the cause of the waste of supplies in South Africa and elsewhere, with a view to the prevention of further wastage in the future."—(The Lord Monkswell.)

*THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of DONOUGHMORE)

My Lords, I do not deny the importance of the subject which the noble Lord has raised. At the same time I think he will agree with me that it is rather a difficult one to discuss at this moment. The noble Lord mentioned a circumstance of which, I confess, I was not aware. I did not know that it was the intention of the Public Accounts Committee to furnish to the House of Commons an Interim Report on this subject, but surely that very admission by the noble Lord must exemplify the difficulty in which your Lordships find yourselves in discussing this subject to-day. It should be borne in mind that the Comptroller and Auditor-General's Report is not a Report submitted to the War Office, but to Parliament. It is the brief, so to say, of the members of the Public Accounts Committee in investigating the accounts presented to Parliament. The Public Accounts Committee go into these matters in very great detail, and until their Report is received it is very difficult for us to make up our minds as to what are the facts and what are the fictions relating to any question that may arise.

The noble Lord opposite is, I think, very hard upon us. He charges the War Office with being very dilatory in dealing with the whole matter. It is important, I think, in a case such as this that your Lordships should keep the main facts in your minds, and I will venture briefly to sketch them in order to show that we have not been as dilatory as the noble Lord thinks. There were, of course, very large surpluses of stores at the end of the war. The rule was, I understand, to have four months supplies in hand. When the war came to an end demobilisation was very rapid, and we were left with a very large surplus of stocks. The question arose, what were we to do with them? We might have brought them home for sale; but we believed that to adopt such a course would have been very expensive. There would have been the cost of collecting at ports, of putting the supplies on board ship, and of transport home, and it was pointed out to us that the authorities in South Africa were of opinion that the cheapest thing would be to get rid of the surplus stores in South Africa. It was believed that we should be able to do so at a price which would warrant us in taking that course, while at the same time saving heavy charges for storage, deterioration, cost of transport, and so forth. The difference between the selling and buying price was regarded by the authorities in South Africa as justified by the above considerations, and there appeared to be no ground to question this conclusion at home in view of the circumstances then disclosed. Various queries were made on transactions in South Africa at the time—I am speaking of a year and a-half ago—and in every case the explanation given was on the lines I have just sketched to your Lordships, and was accepted by us as satisfactory.

The later cases, the cases which did not come to our notice till last autumn, did not so satisfy us. We were not satisfied with certain refunds made to contractors which did not seem to be governed by the terms of the contract. We were not satisfied on several points, and therefore we made up our minds to have further inquiries, not only into those cases, but into all cases. I repeat that the earlier cases were entirely satisfactory; the later cases were not satisfactory, and this fact threw doubt upon the earlier cases, and we therefore decided to re-open the whole question. It was not a question of accounting, but one that concerned competence and honesty; and it was not, therefore, a fit subject to be inquired into simply by a Finance Branch at the War Office. For that reason my right hon. friend the Secretary of State appointed a Committee, under the chairmanship of Sir William Butler, to consider the whole case, and that Committee was given power to call witnesses. I understand that they have called a large number of witnesses and are going very thoroughly into the whole question, but really until we receive the Report of the Committee it is very difficult for me to give detailed replies to some, at any rate, of the queries addressed to me by the noble Lord opposite. Sir William Butler's Committee, I believe, is not expected to report for some weeks, but it has come to my knowledge, and also, I notice, to the knowledge of the noble Lord opposite, that Sir William Butler has already been called as a witness by the Public Accounts Committee. I understand that he was present at the meeting of the Committee last Friday. Anyhow, it is open to the Public Accounts Committee to call him as a witness; and that is the only proper way, I submit, in which the facts can become known to your Lordships and the public as well as to the War Office. I trust, therefore, there will be no prejudging of this matter. No one has been proved guilty of anything yet. There is ground for suspicion, and there is also ground for inquiry. That inquiry is being carried out by the accounts branch in South Africa, by the accounts branch here in London, and by Sir William Butler's Committee, all focussing in the inquiry of the Public Accounts Committee. We are every bit as anxious to know the facts as the noble Lord opposite.

I now come to some of the details referred to by my noble friend. First of all he is very hard on us, because, as he says, we have been very dilatory in replying to the Auditor-General's queries. The noble Lord will, I am sure, realise that every case which the Auditor-General has queried is from its every essence a difficult one.

A NOBLE LORD

Simple as anything.

*THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

I think not. They are all cases that have occurred in South Africa, and we have had to make inquiries out there in order to enable us to reply to the queries. We have had to send for copies of contracts and documents, and we found in many cases that no such documents existed at all. We are doing our best to expedite inquiry. A further cause of delay occurred in this way. It was most important that all documents and contracts should be before Sir William Butler's Committee, and therefore a number of papers were retained at the War Office after they were received for the use of this Committee, but my right hon. friend the Secretary of State has stated in another place that he has given directions for copies of the contracts to be sent to the Comptroller and Auditor-General.

Now I come to the much discussed question of jam. As to the first point raised by the noble Lord opposite, that of the Customs duty, I may toll him that we are trying very hard to get that duty back from the Colonial Government, and negotiations to that end are still proceeding. With reference to the question of weight, I think I shall be able to reassure your Lordships. First of all, I am informed that none of the jams supplied was in tins containing only 12 oz. Part of the supply was in tins containing 16 oz., but the bulk was supplied in "nominals"—that is to say, tins containing either 14 oz. or 28 oz., 1 1b. or 2 1b. "nominals" These "nominals" were either ordered as such, or were in execution of orders for net weights. In the latter case an extra number of "nominals" was supplied equivalent to the deficiency. In all cases the country received the full quantity of jam paid for. When, however, the sale to which the Comptroller and Auditor-General refers in his Report took place in South Africa, the jam was sold by net weight and not by tins. Any apparent shortage is attributed in the first place to the fact that undoubtedly the climate would be expected to cause shrinkage. I am informed by officers who were in South Africa that in many cases when they opened their tins of jam they had to cut off a considerable thickness of sugar which had crystallised at the top. This was a shrinkage due to the climate, and it may in many cases have caused loss of weight. In the second place, the local military authorities, under a misapprehension, treated the tins as containing a full pound of jam each, and that is the reason why, on subsequent investigation, it was necessary for us to make a refund to the contractors who had bought these tins as being 16 oz. tins. It was simply a mistake by our officers out there, which we had, of course, to rectify. The noble Lord asks why jam was bought from Australia, and quotes the fact that 100,000;1bs. of jam is imported into Australia every year. I have visited Australia, and I cannot imagine that 100,000 1bs. of jam can possibly represent the whole consumption of that continent.

LORD MONKSWELL

I did not say it did.

*THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

I remember while in Tasmania noticing the enormous quantities of fruit grown there, and I think an Australian would be very much upset if he were calmly informed that Australia was a jam importing country only, and was not a fit country to which to go to purchase jam. I understand that the jam was purchased in the Colonies at the request of the Colonies, who were very anxious to take part in provisioning the British Army. I do not think it was an entirely unreasonable thing that we should have met them in that matter. The noble Lord asked whether the War Office were going to see that the Comptroller and Auditor-General had a sufficient staff. I would point out that this has nothing whatever to do with the War Office. It is not our business; the Comptroller and Auditor-General does not belong to the War Office, he belongs to Parliament.

LORD MONKSWELL

I quite recognise that. It was my mistake. But you might press the Treasury.

*THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

It is not the Treasury, but Parliament, and we are always pressing Parliament. Then the noble Lord asked a Question with reference to the mules, and stated that there was no proof that the animals ever landed at Beira. But we have a record of their being in camp up country. I have made inquiries, and am told that we have a letter stating that the particular vessel under review lost 141 mules on the voyage, that on landing thirty-six more died, and that twenty-two more were lost, leaving 799 mules accounted for in camp. Of these 728 were sent for the use of the Rhodesian Field Force, the remaining seventy-one having died. These particulars, combined with the fact that the Comptroller and Auditor-General in his Report accepts the statement—on page 233— that the mules were landed in South Africa, clearly establishes the claim that the mules did arrive. In reply to the noble Lord's Question as to the statement that sales of forage took place to a contractor at certain prices "to enable him to carry out his contract," I would inform him that this is one of the cases which have been specially referred to Sir William Butler's Committee, and we look to the Report of that Committee to fully explain all the circumstances. As regards the packing of ammunition, we have been considering that matter for a long time. I was down at Woolwich last Autumn, and saw a new form of box for packing ammunition, but I understand the matter has not been definitely settled yet. It should not be forgotten that the deterioration of these 50,000,000 rounds of I ammunition was not entirely due to bad packing. Included in this amount was ammunition picked upon the veldt which had been dropped from soldiers pouches, and therefore the deterioration was not surprising.

I admit that the prices we received for re-sales were not high; but the noble Lord will, I am sure, recognise that where there is no demand it is often difficult to get any price at all, and, in cases where it is cheaper to sell than to move, the seller has to take the best price he can get. Every case has to be treated on its merits, and the only thing to do is to try your hardest to get the best possible price you can in each individual case. I think the noble Lord will admit that we are meeting him by making inquiries. The fullest inquiries are being made, and, whatever may be the result of those inquiries, lean only repeat the statement made by my right hon. friend in another place that if any person is proved guilty he will be dealt with without fear or favour. The noble Lord says inquiry' may be trusted to prevent recurrences of these incidents in future. Inquiry, of course, always helps if it results in useful information, but that is not all. We think we can do a great deal to avoid a recurrence of such cases in any future war, and we have drawn up a new system for supply accounting in time of war, which will ensure greater simplification, and therefore a more satisfactory method of dealing with such matters. We have also under consideration the formation of a new accounts department, or financial branch of the Army, which will go to the seat of war. This branch will in no way decrease the responsibility of supply officers for purchase and sale of stores, but they will in future have at their elbow, if they require it, the benefit of the advice of financial experts. There will also be this safeguard on behalf of the public, that the review of all cases in time of war will take place on the spot, and not, as now, months afterwards. I do not wish to go into the details of the new organisation. They are already in your Lordships' possession in the Memorandum of my right hon. friend; but I trust I have said enough to show that if any fraud has taken place we are hot, upon the track of it, and if what has taken place has been due to ignorance, we are, I hope, greasing the wheels in order to carry matters in the right direction to avoid this in the future. I hope that in the circumstances my noble friend will not see any necessity to press his Motion.

LORD MONKSWELL

My Lords, I do not propose to press my Motion. I only knew this afternoon that Sir William Butler was to be examined before the Public Accounts Committee and that matters were in fair train for the issuing of a Report before the end of May. With one or two of the observations which the noble Earl made I cannot quite agree. I do not think he has fully explained the wastage in regard to the jam. It seems to me that a large quantity of pots of jam which ought to have contained 14 oz. only contained 12 oz. of eatable jam, the remainder not being up to the mark. When he says the net weight was made up, I suppose he means the net weight taking into consideration in that net weight the solid stuff at the top of the jam which was not eatable; so that apparently there was a certain amount of wastage, and when the jam was sold again you had to take off 2 oz. in every 14 oz.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

In some cases.

LORD MONKSWELL

I think it is rather strange that the noble Earl should still stick to his guns with regard to buying jam from Australia. Surely it is a strange proceeding to go to Australia to provide jam for British troops inasmuch as Australia buys a good part of the jam she consumes from England, not producing enough for her own consumption. It would undoubtedly have been cheaper to have used English jam. As to the mules, I am very glad to hear they did arrive, but there is no evidence of that in the Auditor-General's Report. I am also glad to hear from the noble Earl that the War Office are considering the question of packing ammunition and will shortly come to some conclusion with regard to that. But the noble Earl has not answered my Question with regard to the sale of now suits at half their contract price. I congratulate him on the establishment of the new supply accounting branch and the new accounts branch. I think he has answered me as fully as he could in the circumstances, and I withdraw my Motion.

Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.