ARMY ESTIMATES. (Hansard, 31 July 1891)

§ (3.24.) MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
I have several points to raise on this Vote, but shall postpone them until the Report stage, if I am given to understand that by the withdrawal of the Clergy Discipline Bill from the Paper we may take it that it has been abandoned.

§ MR. GOSCHEN
I do not think that is precisely the way in which a question should be put. I will make a statement with regard to the Bill tomorrow—though we do not intend to proceed with it to-morrow.

§ MR. CALDWELL
The Government have agreed to abandon the Bill in return for being allowed to get Supply. ["No, no!"] Yes; that is the arrangement, and I think the country should know it. The whole of this Supply has been a matter of bargaining, and—

THE CHAIRMAN
Order, order! The hon. Member's observations are in no way relative to transports and remounts.

§ MR. CALDWELL
I move to report Progress. I think that seeing that we have to meet at 12 o'clock to-day we might now very fairly adjourn. We understood that the Government, on condition of being allowed to get all Supply through to-night, had agreed to abandon the Clergy Discipline Bill. ["No, no!" and cries of "Order!"] That Bill was to the advantage of the Church of England and the community at large. 1036 I thought when the Government seemed so anxious to get Supply and had commenced bargaining that I should get my price as well as other Members, but I have failed to do so.

THE CHAIRMAN
Order, order!

COLONEL NOLAN
Is the bread now supplied good?

§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE, Lincolnshire, Horncastle)
No complaints have been made to me, but after the question of the hon. Member I will make inquiries.

§ (3.29.) MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM
I do not believe in bargains with the Government, and if some hon. Members have agreed to defer their observations on the Votes to the Report stage, that is their affair and not mine. I intend to proceed with my remarks. They bear upon a subject which more properly would be dealt with by hon. Members for Newcastle, as it refers to a constituent of theirs, but as they seem to be elsewhere engaged the duty is thrown upon me. The case to which I wish to draw attention is one on which I have asked several questions, though without being able to obtain a satisfactory answer from the Secretary for War. The case is that of a poor working man, named Jobson, who claims to have been the inventor of a certain time fuse, or a certain system of applying it. In 1859 Sir William Armstrong by a combination of the inventions of three men made the Armstrong gun. To render the system perfect a time fuse was required, and that was invented by this man. His models were submitted to the authorities, but were afterwards stolen. Subsequently Sir William Armstrong received a grant for a time fuse, which this man claims to have been his invention. I believe the man would have 1037 obtained redress if it had not been for some intemperate letters he wrote, and I want an assurance that his error of judgment shall not be visited with penal consequences, and that the reward due to his invention shall not be reaped by another man. I think the least the Secretary for War can do will be to give this man some compensation.

§ MR. E. STANHOPE
I remember the question to which the hon. Member refers having been raised, but according to the information I have upon the subject, it appears that if the gentleman referred to has any claim at all, it is rather against the company than against the Government.

§ MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM
There may be some justice in what the right hon. Gentleman states, but I hardly think it possible for a poor man like the one of whom I am speaking to obtain justice in the Law Courts against a rich and powerful firm like that of which Sir William Armstrong is the head. I hope, however, the right hon. Gentleman may see fit to re-consider his position, and see that a sum shall be awarded to this gentleman which will give general satisfaction. A small thing of this kind would not add in any appreciable degree to the expenses of the Government.

§ MR. E. STANHOPE
I will undertake to look into the matter, but the facts are not exactly as they have been stated by the hon. Member.

COLONEL NOLAN
I should like to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the bursting of a 6-in gun the other day in Australia. I find that, instead of the new powder, what is called the brown powder was used, and that that powder is very liable to deterioration in certain climates. If the bursting of the gun was caused by the deterioration of this powder, of course it was not due to any fault in the gun. I am not aware whether this brown powder is liable to explode in this way, and I should like the right hon. Gentleman to furnish some information upon the point cither to-night or to-morrow.

§ MR. E. STANHOPE
I can tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman that, so far 1038 as I am able to form a judgment on this matter, the accident was due to a defect in the gun, and not to any defect in the powder.

§ SIR W. PLOWDEN (Wolverhampton, W.)
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us to-morrow some information in regard to the difficulty experienced in the forging of steel for guns.

§ MR. E. STANHOPE
I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of this question, and I may tell him at once that we do not have any large amount of steel forging in the Arsenal, where steel is only manufactured on a very small scale. That being so, it is not desirable to employ in the manufacture of our steel persons of the same position and experience as have to be employed by the private firms who manufacture this kind of steel on a much larger scale.