The Report of the Select Committee of the House of
Commons on War Office Contracts is not a very satisfac- tory document, for it shows that though the Committee could not put their hands on any very definite abuse, they were aware of an unwholesome atmosphere in the matter of Army contracts. As regards cordite, they say :—" Your Committee are satisfied that the orders were allocated with the single object of securing the best results to the public service. Your Committee, however, consider that in any case in which it might be thought desirable to allow a tender to be modified, a like opportunity should be afforded to all the firms tendering." As regards the general question of bribery, they say that they have received evidence of some cases in which bribes were offered in connection with War Office contracts, and have heard of a few cases in which bribes may have been accepted. "Your Committee," they add, "have learned from many quarters that there is a widespread belief in the existence of such bribery, and having regard to this fact and to the acknowledged prevalence of secret commissions in private commerce, they think there is ground for suspicion that such cases may occur also in the public service, and they have some doubt whether the system under which detailed inspection takes place gives complete security against it." They end by declaring that they consider it undesirable "that negotiations for contracts should be conducted personally between Members of Parliament and the Depart- mental officials." That is sound, and indicates the real cure. Every one, from Members of Parliament to officials, should be taught that there must be the utmost scrupulosity and extreme rigour of conscientiousness in all dealings with Government contracts. But the matter cannot rest with the present Report. There must next year be a far more thorough and complete investigation into the whole question. We trust that candidates will be universally asked to pledge themselves to such an inquiry.
Previous page
