§ MR. MOONEY (Newry)I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state why the proceedings against Messrs. Kynoch were taken under Section 74 of the Explosives Act, whereby a charge of breaking a highly technical regulation had to be heard by a local bench of magistrates; is he aware that Section 56 of the same Act gives the alternative of proceeding before a tribunal competent to decide a case involving chemical questions of great difficulty, viz., a legal umpire and two 849 expert arbitrators; whether the Home Office inspectors have admitted, in regard to Messrs. Kynoch's Arklow explosive, the purity of the explosive, that the admitted percentage of mercury would have an antiseptic effect, that it did not alter the character of the explosive as an explosive, the use of mercury with nitro-cotton in Germany and elsewhere, and that it had no deleterious effect upon the explosive; whether, in view of these admissions, he will state why exceptional treatment has been given to Messrs. Kynoch; and will he give instructions that in cases of this kind the special tribunal contemplated by the Act will in future be resorted to.
§ *MR. GLADSTONEI laid the whole of the papers in this case before the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the proceedings were taken by him under Section 9 of the Explosives Act, which provides that in the manufacture of explosives the terms of the licence shall be duly observed. The explosive was seized by the inspectors under Section 74. Arbitration, even if admissible in view of the terms of Section 56 of the Act, does not, as I have already pointed out, carry the necessary power to seize, and, if need be, obtain the forfeiture of explosives which may be a source of danger. The inspectors have not admitted the purity of the explosive seized, but have repeatedly stated that this cannot be determined owing to the presence of mercury. The fact that there has occurred a spontaneous ignition of some of Messrs. Kynoch's explosive containing mercury does not bear out the contention as to purity. The inspectors consider it unnecessary and absurd to add antiseptics to gelatinised explosives, and they consider, further, that mercuric chloride is likely to have a detrimental effect upon the explosive. Messrs. Kynoch have not received exceptional treatment; as I have already explained, proceedings were taken against them because it was their explosive which, by spontaneous ignition, first drew attention to the matter. I should like to point out, further, that there is no foundation whatever for the charge of hostility to Ireland and Irish industries which has been freely made against myself and my Department. Messrs. Kynoch have three factories in Great Britain and one in Ireland, and they employ many more people in the former country than in the 850 latter. Proceedings were taken against the firm without regard to the locality of their different factories, and as a matter of fact no seizure has been made and no proceedings taken at Arklow. Nothing whatever has been done or will be done to interfere with the manufacture by Messrs. Kynoch's at Arklow of lawful explosives.
§ MR. MOONEYsaid the right hon. Gentleman had not answered the last paragraph of his Question.
§ *MR. GLADSTONEI think I have. I have already pointed out that the arbitration clause does not give the necessary power of seizing explosives made illegally.
§ MR. MOONEYasked whether it was not the fact that the explosives which were seized were explosives which were manufactured at Arklow, and was it, therefore, correct to say that there had been no interference with Messrs. Kynoch's works; also, how was it, if the inspectors of the Department seized the explosives on the ground that they were dangerous to the public, the case was taken before a tribunal which had only authority to decide whether a technical breach of a Home Office licence had been committed?
§ *MR. GLADSTONEThe technical breach obviously involves the question of public danger. As to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's Question, the explosive seized was an explosive which contained an unauthorised ingredient, and any such explosive, whoever makes it and wherever it is found, will be so dealt with by the officials of my Department.
§ MR. MOONEYAre we to understand that manufacturers in England who were manufacturing explosives containing the same ingredients as were those of Messrs. Kynoch had their manufactures passed by the Home Office inspectors, and that they only stopped passing thorn when Messrs. Kynoch's explosives had been seized?
§ *MR. GLADSTONEI dealt with that question fully yesterday, and I repeat that, whenever it comes to the notice and knowledge of the inspectors that 851 explosives are being manufactured with this ingredient, they will take action similar to the action which has been taken against Messrs. Kynoch.
§ MR. MOONEYasked whether it was not within the right hon. Gentleman's own knowledge that the inspectors of his Department had passed explosives containing this ingredient which were manufactured by English manufacturers, and only stopped doing so when Messrs. Kynoch were attacked?
§ *MR. GLADSTONEI give to that the most emphatic negative in my power.
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.)asked the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention had been drawn to the fact that in certain circumstances there was a likelihood of the Arklow works of Messrs. Kynoch being closed; whether if that should take place, it must result in the throwing out of employment of several hundreds of men and of causing considerable distress there; and whether, having regard to the great necessity there was of employment, particularly in a place like Arklow, the Government would take steps to prevent any necessity arising for the closing of these works?
§ * MR. GLADSTONEI should be extremely sorry if any unnecessary action on the part of my Department led to any interference with the works at Arklow. I can give that assurance to the hon. Member quite cordially. But I cannot see why the prosperity of the works at Arklow should depend upon the manufacture of an explosive which contains an unauthorised ingredient and which constitutes a public danger.
§ MR. MOONEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as representing the Prime Minister, whether, in view of the very evasive Answers they had received from the Home Secretary in connection with this matter, he would consider the advisability of putting down the Home Office Vote for an early date, so that the matter might be fully discussed.
§ MR. ASQUITHNo, Sir, certainly not. The Answers given by the Home Secretary, so far from being evasive, have been explicit in the extreme.
§ MR. T. L. CORBETT (Down, N.)asked the Home Secretary whether samples of this dangerous explosive were discovered at the recent convention in Dublin.
§ MR. MOONEYasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was in a position to state the name of the English firm against which he was proceeding.
§ * MR. GLADSTONEThe National.
§ MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN (Belfast, W.)asked whether the policy of destroying Irish industries was one of the new policies of the Liberal Imperialists in the Cabinet?
§ [No Answer was given.]
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMONDIt is because Chamberlain's in it.