§ MR. MOONEY (Newry)I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that about nine months ago the magazines of Messrs. Kynoch, Limited, were seized and shut 675 down by order of the Home Office, on the ground that certain explosives manufactured by them at their Ark low works contained ingredients contrary to the licence issued by the Home Office, and that during that period Messrs. Kynoch have been precluded from manufacturing this explosive; if he is aware that, during this period, certain English firms have manufactured explosives containing the same ingredient as that used by Messrs. Kynoch; whether he is aware that explosives manufactured abroad, and which also contain the same ingredient, have been, and are being, imported into this country; if he is not aware of these facts, will he have inquiries made as to whether English manufacturers are using this ingredient; and, if so, does he intend to take the same action against them as he has already taken against Messrs. Kynoch.
§ MR. GLADSTONENo magazines have been seized, there being no power under the Explosives Act to do so. Explosives of unauthorised composition have been seized in certain magazines belonging to Messrs. Kynoch, but this in no way prevents these magazines from being used for the storage of other explosives, so long as the seized explosives are not removed, and the total quantity for which the magazine is licensed is not exceeded. Messrs. Kynoch have in no way been precluded from manufacturing explosives of authorised composition. One other English firm has admitted the use of chloride of mercury, and its case is being dealt with. Inquiry is being made in a third case. But, so far as I am aware, no other manufacturer has added an unauthorised ingredient since the Kynoch seizure took place. Three foreign firms have been detected in sending to this country explosives containing mercury, and large consignments have been returned to the factories of origin, whereby the firms in question have been put to great expense. Two of these firms have given guarantees that the offence will not be repeated. I shall make no distinction between Messrs. Kynoch and any other firm discovered to be acting in a similar manner.
§ MR. MOONEYArising out of that, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman this. He said one other English firm had been dealt with. What does he moan by 676 "being dealt with"? Is that English firm being dealt with in the same way as Kynoch's. Has the magazine been seized?
§ MR. GLADSTONEAction is being taken, and the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity of seeing exactly what is being done. I do not say that in the case I am referring to they acted in precisely the same way as Messrs. Kynoch.
§ MR. MOONEYArising out of that, the allegation which I have made against the Home Office is that they treated Messrs. Kynoch in a distinct and separate manner from the other manufacturers, and in view of that statement I wish to know what the right hon. Gentleman means by saying that this other firm is being dealt with. Is he going to treat that firm in the same manner?
§ MR. GLADSTONEThere will be a prosecution. Steps are being taken.
§ MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)Has the Home Office seized the magazines of those other manufacturers in the same way that they seized those of Messrs. Kynoch?
§ MR. GLADSTONENo. I am informed that when the use of this substance was brought to the knowledge of the responsible owners of the works they withdrew all the explosives which contained the particular ingredient. Messrs. Kynoch, on the other hand, as I am informed, certainly declined to admit that the ingredient was there at all, and resisted all steps taken.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDIs it not a fact that for weeks and weeks, not to speak of months, it was known to the Inspectors of the Home Office and to the right hon. Gentleman that other manufacturers besides Messrs. Kynoch were manufacturing with this ingredient, and will he explain why the delay had taken place?
§ MR. GLADSTONEI have already explained that legal proceedings were taken against Messrs. Kynoch, and judgment at quarter sessions has only recently been obtained. It was necessary to know how the law stood before dealing with the others.
§ MR. MOONEYI have asked the right hon. Gentleman does he intend to 677 take the same action against this firm as was taken aginst Kynoch's. I wish to know was it not in his power, at the time of taking action against Kynoch's to take action under a section of the Act of Parliament which would have done away with the necessity of seizing the magazines and so giving an advantage to their trade rivals. Is that the way the right hon. Gentleman is going to proceed against the English firm?
§ Mr. GLADSTONEIt is rather difficult to answer a Question of that kind, because the circumstances might be different. I have already said that I wish to make no distinction between Messrs. Kynoch and any other firm acting in a similar manner.
§ Mr. MOONEYIs it intended to take action against the English firm under the same section under which Messrs. Kynoch wore proceeded against?
§ Mr. GLADSTONEThat is so.
§ Mr. DOLAN (Leitrim, N.)Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Chamberlain, the Chairman of Kynoch's, made a public statement that the reason they were proceeded against was that they were an Irish firm?
§ Mr. GLADSTONEIt is quite impossible to make a more ridiculous statement.
§ Mr. MOONEYI beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the charge against Messrs. Kynoch was one of using an infinitesimal quantity of perchloride of mercury (one in 100,000 parts of the finished article) as an antiseptic or steriliser in the manufacture of high explosives, for the purpose of preserving them against decomposition under varying climatic changes; whether perchloride of mercury is the most powerful antiseptic known for this purpose, and is habitually used in England, Germany, and other countries for this purpose; and whether he can give the number of fatal accidents which have occurred in the following factories during the years 1896 to 1905, inclusive: Nobel's, Curtis and Harvey, National Explosives, Cotton Powder Company, Eley's, War Office, Kynoeh.
§ Mr. GLADSTONEThe quantity of mercuric chloride mentioned is quite 678 sufficient to vitiate the official test. The use of antiseptic in gelatinised explosives is unnecessary. Mercury is not habitually used in this country, and there is reason to believe that elsewhere it is used for the purpose of masking the heat test rather than as an antiseptic. The number of accidents at the factories mentioned can be obtained from the annual reports of His Majesty's inspectors of explosives, but I may say at once that the result of such comparison is quite favourable to. Kynoch's. The danger of the use of mercuric chloride, however, arises principally after the explosive leaves the factory, because it lies in the keeping and using of the explosive rather than in its manufacture.
§ Mr. MOONEYMay I ask how is it that when other Members ask a Question which involves some figures with regard to industrial matters in England the right hon. Gentleman is always willing to give thorn, yet he does not do so now, although the matter is within knowledge of his Department?
§ Mr. GLADSTONEDo I understand ' the hon. Member wants the figures?
§ Mr. MOONEYYes.
§ *Mr. GLADSTONEI did not receive them in time to embody them in my Answer, but I now have them here and they are as follows: —
| Years 1896 to 1905. | ||
| Company. | No. of Accidents. | No. of persona killed |
| The Cotton Powder Co., Ltd. | 3 | 4 |
| Curtis & Harvey Ltd. - | 5 | 14 |
| Eley Brothers, Ltd. | 1 | 1 |
| Kynoch, Ltd. | 2 | 3 |
| The National Explosives Co., Ltd. | 2 | 5 |
| Nobel's Explosives Co., Ltd. | 6 | 13 |
| Waltham Abbey | 1 | 3 |
§ Mr. JOHN REDMONDIs it not a fact that during the last ten years not a single life was lost in the Arklow factory?
§ MR. GLADSTONEI take it that it is so from the hon. Member.