HC Deb 19 March 1888 vol 323 cc1615-6

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in 1860 and 1861, the workmen entered in the Manufacturing Departments after 1859 were held by the War Office Authorities to be not entitled to superannuation under the Act of 1859; and, if so, why the Circulars of 29th August and 17th December, 1861, were sent to Enfield or Woolwich; whether (assuming the Circulars were sent) he can state the respective dates on which they were sent, and whether, and when, any lists of individuals or class of persons were transmitted as required by the first Circular to be done at the earliest opportunity after August, 1861; and, if sent nine years afterwards, what was the reason for the delay at Woolwich and Enfield; whether Item 5 of the Regulations, referred to in the last-named Circular, has ever been acted upon at Enfield or Woolwich Arsenal, so far as requiring artizans and labourers to pass an examination in reading, writing, and arithmetic; and, if not, why not; whether any difference of pay to artizans and labourers has ever been made in the said Manufacturing Departments under Items 1 and 2 of the same Regulations; and, if not, why not; whether he can state the date when particulars of cases for consideration were transmitted, as required by the last paragraph of the second Circular of 17th December, 1861; and, if sent nine years afterwards, what was the reason for the 4 delay at Woolwich and Enfield; whether, after 1859, when the men at Woolwich worked short time—for instance two weeks in three—there was any distinction in so working short time between the men entered before and those entered after 1859; and, whether in any way any difference was made either in duties or pay?

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

declined to enter into the argumentative task to which the hon. and gallant Member invited him. He would, however, be glad to give the hon. and gallant Gentleman privately any information he required as to the facts.