HC Deb 21 February 1888 vol 322 c993

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the new 9.2 and 10-inch guns, which have failed under proof, are paid for in full by Government, as if the guns had proved to be sound ones?

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE) (Lincolnshire, Horncastle)

Certainly not.

SIR BERNHARD SAMUELSON (Oxfordshire, Banbury)

asked, Whether it was not the case that a number of those guns were manufactured at the Royal Artillery Factory at Woolwich; whether some of those guns failed on proof, and had to be sent away; whether, also, a grave mistake had not been committed in ordering a gun from one maker and the carriage from another, and that the gun had turned out to be five tons too heavy for the carriage; and, also, whether a Return of the cost would be made to the House?


The House will at once see that Notice should be given of a Question of such magnitude, involving so many details. As far as I am concerned, there is very little, if any, truth in the statements contained in the Question.

MR. HANBURY (Preston)

inquired Whether, if the guns were not paid for in full, any payment at all was made for them?


said, that when contracts extended over one year and part of the work was done, advances were made to the contractors upon the work performed, the balance being paid on completion of the work; but there was an undertaking from the contractor that if the gun failed under proof a new one would be provided.