Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

Inquiries


Old Tom

Recommended Posts

The Chilcot report, or rather the lack of it, is in the news again. Did any aspect of WW1 become subject to any inquiry of a similar nature?

Old Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a report into the Gallipoli campaign. Can't think of anything else.

Keith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Moerbeke inquiry in 1914 concerning the losses of Portsmouth Bn RMLI and the RND men they picked up on the retreat out of Antwerp.

Regards

Pompey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps not quite what you were thinking of, Old Tom but: In August 191 the Public Accounts Committee reported critically on the building of army camps in the UK, making comments that pointed to the construction company owned by Sir John Jacksopn

Sir John – the MP for Devonport – was sufficiently offended by the Public Accounts Committee's remarks to ask for a judicial inquiry. A Royal Commission was convened and sat in January 1917. Lawyers for Sir John said he had written to Lord Kitchener on 7 August 1914 offering to build three camps without profit, and these were duly erected. For the Wiltshire camps, the firm had charged cost plus 5 per cent, with 1½ per cent being added for establishment charges. Directors' services had been given free. Sir John claimed that normally the added-on profit would have been 10 per cent; in normal times less was never accepted and except for war work the company would ask for fifteen. Eventually his company had spent £3.75 million on building various camps, carrying out work that at one time had been estimated at £1.5 million.


The Commission's report in April 1917 exonerated Sir John's company from all imputations, including that of bringing about a state of affairs in which it could, and did, extort exorbitant terms, but added that a state of things had arisen which enabled him practically to dictate his own terms. The amount he was entitled to under the agreement for the Salisbury Plain camps was greatly excessive and the agreement was unreasonable. The Commission felt that the wages paid were fair, being less than the London rates but more than those hitherto paid locally. Some lazy and incompetent men had been hired, but this the Committee attributed to the need for the huts to be erected as quickly as possible. There was no evidence of excessive prices being charged for materials bought through Sir John's company, indeed they were lower than those paid direct by the War Office.


Sir John's immediate reaction to the report was to write to the War Office reducing his added-on profit claim to 4 per cent, surrendering £30,140. He had made this offer the previous July, but had withdrawn it when the Public Accounts Committee had made its criticism and until the Royal Commission had announced its findings.


Moonraker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...