The Sun.
London, England, 1858-12-08 00:00:00

THE ROYAL
CCONTRAC OMMISSION ON ARMY
TS.

Yesterday., at 12 o'clock, the Royal Commission
met again in one of the committee-rooms of the
House of Commons and continued their investiga-
tion—Mr. Selfe acting as chairman.
Mr. C. S. Elliott who has bean superintendent
of inspectors at the Tower since Feb. 1856, was
called, and adverting to the rumour mentioned by
Mr. Lardner in his evidence given before the com-
missioners on the previous day as to his (Mr. El-
liott's) having received a commission on stores sup-
plied during the Crimean war to the Tower, said he
wished to give an unqualified contradiction to it.
He altogether deniedthat anyindividual responsibi-
lity in making contracts for stores supplied to the
department ever devolved on him, or that he;:ever
received any remuneration in respect of any con-
tracts which had been entered into with the de-
partment.
Mr. Aeland stated that Mr. Boylan, who had
mentioned the rumour in question to Mr. Lardner,
had informed him (Mr. Acland) that morning that
he was prepared to give evidence before the Com-
missioners on the matter, should they summon
him to do so.
The Chairman thereupon directed Mr. Dew, the
secretary to the Commission. to summon Mr. Boy-
lan accordingly, which he did, and he will pro-
bably appear as a witness to-morrow (this day.)
Mr. Selfe added that it was an extraordinary thing,
seeing that this Commission had been sitting from
time to time for more than four months, that Mr.
Boylan should have taken no opportunity of com-
municating with the Commissioners ; for, if Mr.
Lardner had spoken the truth, Mr. Boylan was in
a position to give them information as to the charge
in question against Mr. Elliot.
Mr. Elliot then related in some detail the
mode of inspection pursued at the 'rower, since it
was reorganised in the early past of 1856. He
added that since the reorganisation of the inspect-
ing branch there had been complaints from con-
tractors as to rejections of stores sent in by them,
but he did not know one case in which a con-
tractor had established a charge of undue severity
against the inspectors.
By Colonel French—Some of the swords and
cutlasses supplied to the army are inspected and
approved at Birmingham, under the superintend-
ence of Colonel Dixon, and some at the Tower,
_
under that of Captain Jarvis. The test to which
they are subjected is a very severe one.
By Mr. Twiner—Before being appointed superin-
tendent of inspectors he (witness) was a clerk in
the requisition branch, acting immediately under
the storekeeper (Mr. Stacey) and the deputy-store-
keeper (Mr. 'Hodson), now deceased.
Mr. Turner said he held in his hand a Parlia-
mentary return of stores sent out to the Crimea
from Ist October, 1854, to 23d February, 1855,
which included another return, dated from the
Tower on May 3, 1855, and signed by the deputy-
storekeeper, Mr. Hodson. From that it appeared
there were procured by special contract of Messrs.
Almond 40,000 waterproof hoods, at 4s. each;
40,000 leggings, at 6s. each ; 55,000 capes, at 235.
6d. each; and 20,000 pairs of gauntlets, at 2s. Bd.
each. He wished the witness to state what was
meant by a special contract.
Witness said a special contract was to deliver
stores within a certain time without competition.
The contract to which Mr. Turner had alluded was
entered into by Sir T. Hastings or Mr. Monsell,
and the only knowledge he (witness) had of it was
the delivery of thee stores at the Tower for inspec-
tion. It was considered at the time a very large
order, but the contract was made with the view of
procuring the stores in question, which were greatly
in requisition, in the shortest possible time.
Mr. Turner said there were 195 special contracts
made at the Tower about that time, and Messrs.
Almond obtained about 58 of them, comprising in
value more than one-third of the whole. He asked
if it was good policy, when the stores were so
urgently required within a specified time, to in-
trust one firm with so many contracts ?
Witness thought they obtained the stores in a
much shorter time that way than if they had put
the supply up to open competition. He added that
thestorekeeper at the Tower entered into many
dial contracts about that time, but not for the
stores mentioned by, Mr. Turner. He (witness)
had nothing to do with the contracts which were
given to Messrs. Almond. They were cap and ac-
coutrement makers, but, like other persons in the
trade, they supplied warm clothing also.
Mr. Turner remarked upon so large a number
of articles of warm clothing having been got
from Messrs. Almond, who were in reality ac-
coutrement mal‘ers ; anti he thought some of
the city houses might have been asked to supply
the warm clothing in the emergency. Besides,
Messrs. Almond supplied 15,000 pairs of brown
boots at 235. a pair, when other firms would
have supplied them at 20s. ; 30,000 cotton hand-
kerchiefs at 64d .each, when other firms would
have supplied them at 4d; 3,000 privates' red
jackets at 10s. id., when they could have been had
at from Bs. Bd. to 9s. ld., and 30,000 pairs of worsted
socks at 12s. 6d. a-dozen, when it appeared the de-
partment obtained 38,000 pairs from Kynaston and
Co. at 10s. 4d a-dozen.
The Chairman said it was very easy to put down
certain figures and assume the articles could be
bought at those assumed prices.
Mr. Turner said he must be permitted to pursue
his own course of examination, and remarked that
the whole of the articles of clothing provided at the
Tower, according to the Parliamentary return dated
the 3d May, 1855, upon a rough estimate he had
made, were valued at upwards of £450,000, of which
sum Messrs. Almond appeared to have been paid
upwards of £165,000 for the portion supplied by
them under special orders from the Tower.
Witness said if the waterproof capes and hoods
were included in that the contract as to them was
not given by the authorities at the Tower at all.
The storekeeper at the Tower had. authority from
the Board of Ordnance in a time of emergency to
purchase stores at his own discretion, and both the
then storkeeper (Mr. Stacey) and the deputy-store-
keeper (Mr. Hodson) did so to a large extent.
By the Chairman—He (witness) had nothing at
all to do with the purchases to which Mr. Turner
had referred. He had no power to make contracts.
The discretion to purchase was with Mr. Stacey,
but soon after the commencement of the war Mr.
Stacey was taken ill, and thatdiscretion practically
devolved on Mr. Hodson, his deputy. The special
contracts were made to meet the exigencies of the
service, and for that purpose a large discretion was
given to the storekeeper at the Tower. He (witness)
did not enter into any contracts on behalf of 'the
department, or derive any pecuniary benefit what-
ever from any such contracts. He had no connexion
with the house of Almond, though on friendly
terms with the partners.
By- Mr. Turner--Sir Ben4amin Hawes, the
Under-Secretary of State for War, stated to him
on one occasion that a representation as to his
(witness) having favoured Messrs. Almond had
been made to him, and asked him whether there
was any foundation for it, when he assured
him there was not. Witness added incidentally,
that Government had taken Messrs Cubitt's pre-
mises in Grosvenor-road, :Pimlico, at a rental of
•Ll,BOO a year, and that they intended to convert
• thOm into a military clothing depot, of which he was
to be the superintendent on the discontinuance of
the establishment at Weedon,

Mr. J. Fessey, inspector of leather and accoutre-
ments at the Tower,-, and who was previously in
-the employ of Mr. Bramston, accoutrement maker,
Parker-street, Lincoln's-inn-fields, said, in reply to
the chairman, that about 14 years ago he heard of
Mr. Bramston, who supplied articles to the Tower,
having given a viewer named Cuffley a sovereign
on one occasion ; and had no doubt Mr. Bramston
did so. The some viewer got a hat on another oc-
casisn from Mr. Oliphant, another accoutrement
maker ; and he believed Mr, Oliphant made Mr.
Bramston pay half the price of the hat. From the
case he had mentioned he believed that bribery did
take place at the Tower at that time. It was the
impression of the trade generally, and it was wit-
ness's impression also ; but he did not know of his
own knowledgeno it was so. He did not believe that
bribery -was w
or could .be, practised at the
Tower under the present system.
By the Chairman--At t the beginning of this year
he inspected four hats
the forthe metropolitan police,
at the instance of
Commissioners of Police,
which were furnished by estsrs. Hebbert. None
of the four hats were equal the sealed pattern,
but two of them were better°than the other two.
About a fortnight afterwards he
, n inspected Ay eh h 313 of
the metropolitan police hats
weerewaalsl
assisted by a viewer named Phillips, They
rejected, as not being equal to the standard sealed
pattern. He had never been a hatter, but he had
handled a good many hundreds of policemen's hats.
He pledged himself that they were not equal to the
sealed pattern by 30 per cent. 1,700 more were sent
to the Tower early in Feb., and after undergoing a
fair inspection rejected also, as not being up to the
mark. No damage o`r violence was done to the hats
while they were at the Tower. The manufacturer who
was present at the inspection, complained of the
hats having been unfairly treated, but witness de-
nied
it, and still maintained that the hats were bad.
Mr. W. Phillips, a viewer of the Tower, corrobo-
rated the evidence of the preceding witness as to
the inferior quality of the hats.
Mr. Peter Tait, contractor for army clothing and
general draper at Limerick, was next -called. He
said he became a contractor with the Government
towards the end of 1855, and had furnished 120,000
suits of clothing in three years for the line. His
-cont riots had all LK ei,under the system of open
competition, but he had reason to believe that his