HC Deb 09 May 1865 vol 179 cc46-7

said, he would beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade the following question respecting the Report made by Messrs. Robert Galloway and Thomas Gray, the officers of that Department, as to the mode of working out the Chain Cables and Anchors Act of 1864, copy of which Report was laid upon the table of the House on the 8th day of March, 1865, and which contains the following paragraph (No 13):— The great majority of chain makers also object strongly to any maker being allowed to test his own cables for the purposes of giving a certificate of public proof; and many makers, who intend to go to the expense of making their machines perfect, have expressed their determination not to take out a licence, but to have all their work tested at a public machine: namely, Whether any, and how many, makers of chain cables and anchors had applied to the Board of Trade for a licence to test cables and anchors under the Act of 1864, which comes into operation on the 1st day of July next; also, whether, in case any such applications have been made, it is the intention of the Board of Trade to grant licences to manufacturers, not only to test but to affix the public proof stamp, as required by the Act, OR anchors and cables manufactured by themselves.


said, in reply, that the power of the Board of Trade, under the Chain Cables and Anchors Acts was simply to give effect to the provision, of that Act, and if any person applied for a licence for a testing machine, all that was necessary was that the Government Inspector should report that the machine was a proper one, and able to test the strength of the anchors and chains. The Board had no power to ascertain whether the person applying for a licence was the manufacturer or not. Applications had been received from three manufacturers. One of these was from Messrs Brown, Lenox, and Co. Their machine was found to be perfectly sound in principle, and after some little matters of detail had been attended to, the licence was granted. But Messrs. Lloyds had been found so seriously defective that the Board had not yet determined whether a licence should be granted or not. In all probability the machine would be altered in accordance with certain requirements made by the Inspector.