§ MR. HANBURYI beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the contracts for the two 110-ton guns for H.M.S. Victoria were entered into by the War Office; whether in the case of one, at least, the form of contract was that generally used for the purchase of ordinary stores; whether it did, in fact, contain provisions quite inapplicable for the supply of such an article as a 110-ton gun; whether, on the other hand, neither the contract itself, nor the schedule attached to it, contained any provisions as to the materials to be used in the construction of the gun; whether it contained no details as to the proof the gun was to undergo before its final acceptance by Her Majesty's Government; whether he will lay a copy of this contract (omitting, if necessary, the cost) upon the Table of the House; and by whom, when, and how, was each of these guns tested; upon whose certificate were they passed; and when, in each case, was payment for them made to the contractors?
§ MR. E. STANHOPEThe contracts for the two 110-ton guns for Her Majesty's ship Victoria were entered into by the War Office in 1886. The same form of contract was used for both; in fact, we have only one form of contract for all store and clothing contracts, and the general provisions are applicable to guns, but any special provisions should appear in the schedule. The Audit Office has raised the point that the form of contract is not applicable to guns, because of the provision in Clause 2 that a contractor should replace rejections in 10 days, altogether ignoring the proviso "after he is required by notice to do so." The contract did not specify the material to be used, or the tests to be applied, as there was a resident Inspector at Elswick, and there were authorised tests for steel in which the Elswick Company had already concurred. A representative of the Elswick Company is summoned on important occasions to sit with 1509 the Ordnance Committee. The contract did provide for proof and also for rejection of inferior supplies, but gave no details as to proof. Since that time provision has been made for inserting in the schedule to the contract full details as to all these matters. The question now raised refers to a contract made four years ago. For the examination and proof of these and all other guns the Director of Artillery is responsible. One of these guns was paid for in 1888–9; the other is not yet finally paid for.
§ MR. HANBURYWhat I want to know from my right hon. Friend is, whether in regard to the guns the test they were to undergo was merely the result of a verbal understanding between the War Office and the contractors, or was there any contract in existence requiring the contractors to accept the test?
§ MR. E. STANHOPEit was certainly not a verbal understanding. It was, however, a deliberate understanding entered into with the contractors at the sitting of the Ordnance Committee.
§ MR. HANBURYDid it in any way constitute a contract between the War Office and the contractors?
§ MR. E. STANHOPEMost undoubtedly; and the Elswick Company knew that if they broke their faith they would never be employed by the War Office again.