FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1918
1918 - 0898.PDF
AUGUST 8, 1918. Secretary to a Minister cpming down and engaging in this passionate defence ofthis extraordinary transaction, I say " passionate defence " because I noticed that the representative of the Ministry of Munitions carefully avoided sayingone word in defence of the contract. He said that the War Office made the con- tract and handed it over to the Ministry of Munitions. All hesaid was that thecontract was made under circumstances of great stress, that the particular method had to be adopted, and that it was a good method. I know nothingabout that matter. I dare say it is a good method, but he carefully avoided saying one word in defence of the constitution of the company or of the givingof the contract to it. The hon. Member for Hammersmith not only defends the company passionately, but he defends the transaction. He knowssomethingabout the Stock Exchange. Does he really say, when it comes to a question of paying dividends, that it jjees not matter whether you get your dividends ona 6d. share or on £14 10s. ? He utterly failed to make himself clear. The man in the street will not understand this extraordinary system of inflated capitalor be abte to follow his explanation. He will take it that if he had a 6d. share and it is suddenly turned into £14 10s. that he had done a good stroke of business.I venture to say that the hon. Member will not be able to remove that impression, and if, in addition, you have published in the newspapers of this country, as youhave, the names of men connected with the Government as interested in these transactions, you will create a very ugly impression indeed. There is a gooddeal of scandal going round, and the Government ought to be extremely careful to avoid giving the public the impression that there is anything wrong. Imust say, after listening to this Debate and especially to the speech of the hon. Membar'for Hammersmith, that I am convinced that it will be the impression ofthe public that thsre is something very unpleasant in this whole transaction, and, if the hon. Member who represents the Ministry of Munitions thinks that hecan remove that impression by a Departmental Inquiry, he is labouring under the greatest mistake. Mr. Bonar Law : The two speeches to which'X have listened—that of the righthon. Gentleman the Member for the Cleveland Division (Mr. Herbert Samuel), and that of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon)—raise an issue theimportance of which no one can feel more strongly than I do. I am not going to deal with that aspect of the question to which my hon. Friend has mainlydirected himself. The House understands the history of this transaction. I am not defending what took place, but I am explaining. It is very easy longafter the event to look upon transactions of this kind and regard them as entirely foolish, but put yourself in the position of those who knew that they must getthis particular commodity and must make certain of getting it whatever the price. That is the Justification which would be made by those at the WarOffice who were responsible for the course then taken. I do not need to tell the House that when this transaction came to the Treasury—it came, of course,as an accomplished fact, because in the early days of the War we could not interfere in matters of this kind ; we had to let the Departments take whatsteps they thought necessary to get these things—we felt, as the Select .Com- mittee felt, that it was a contract very difficult to justify. What the> Govern-ment, therefore, had to do was to make the best arrangement which was possible in view of what happened before, and I think my right hon. Friend the Memberfor the Cleveland Division will adiuit, so far as the recommendations of the Select Committee are concerned, that what the Ministry of Munitions have proposedto do from that point of view is sufficient and all that can be done. But the other issue is a very dffierent one. It raises the suspicion, not ofimproper finance, for I do not think it is the business of the Government to take* up every case of improper finance, and I should not suggest that we should takeany action on account of that unless, indeed, it was so bad that the Public Prosecutor took action, but it raises asuspicionof an entirely different kind. Butto speak of the people being connected with the Government, it is very far-fetched to brinj that in at all, that men of great business firms have indulged in a kindof finance in order to do business with the Government, which is, in the highest degree, improper. That is the charge. My*hon. Friend has a right, it seems tome, to press that this aspect of the case should be sifted in such a way that the real facts should be brought to light. I do think that the House of Commonshis a right to ask that the Government should take the steps necessary to secure that result. I think so too. I do not know exactly what sort of tribunalwjuld be bsst for this purpose ; it is rather difficult to decide right away on that point. It is obvious that it must be a tribunal where evidence can be siftedin the best possible way, and what I would say to the House is, for this is really far nnre than a Departmental question, that I undertake that an inquiry ofthat kind will be held, and I hope to be able to announce before the Adjournment the form which I shall recommend for that inquiry. m A Workman's Error. ' - - - - r AT Tottenham Police Court on Aug. 1st William Benjamin Smith, of Tottenham, and James Harding, of Enneld, were summoned by the Ministry of Munitions for committing certain acts likely to endanger any person using an aeroplane. They were also summoned for doing certain acts calculated to deceive their employers as to the quality of certain material. It was stated that the men Were working on spars for Handley Page machines, and Harding held a square while Smith drilled a hole in an aeroplane spar. The hole was a quarter of an inch out. After -discovering their error the defendants stuffed the hole with a plug, and made another hole in the right place. The effect was to reduce the strength of the spar. A Government inspector who detected the mistake asked Smith if he would like to ride on a flying machine containing such a spar, and Smith replied that he would not. Mr. Rowland Chessum, the proprietor of the factory, said he had repeatedly impressed on his workers the need of exactitude. When he was informed of the incident he called the work people together and again reminded them of the importance of their work. He also dismissed Smith and Harding. The defence was that the men did not realise that plugging was forbidden on aeroplane work. Smith admitted that it was he, and not Harding, who drilled the hole. Harding only sighted for him. , . - The defendants were fined /io 4s. each on the first summons, and the second^ summons was dismissed. German Bombs on Holland. A STATEMENT has been issued by the Dutch Foreign Office, giving details of several recent instances in which German aircraft flew over Dutch territorial waters and were fired on. The Dutch Minister in Berlin has been instructed to make an emphatic protest to the German Government. oooooooo o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Launching a Ger- man Seaplane from a Mother S h i p I n the background a U. boat. O O OIO O O O o 0:0*0 896
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
