§ MR. MUNTZsaid, he rose to move for a Committee to inquire into the agreement entered into between the Commissioners of Inland Revenue and the patentee of the machine for perforating the sheets of postage labels. In the year 1847 a Mr. Archer discovered and patented an invention for perforating the interstices of postage stamps, which did away with the use of a knife or scissors in separating them, and offered his invention to the Post Office, the Commissioners of Stamps, and the Board of Inland Revenue, asking no remuneration except that which might be contingent upon the admitted utility of his invention. The Commissioners of Stamps and of Inland Revenue agreed to remunerate him accordingly; and, after he had succeeded to his most sanguine expectations, they offered him a mere bagatelle for the invention. This, of course, he declined, and ultimately 1,000l. was offered, and then 2,000l.; but as these offers were altogether disproportionate to the expenditure Mr. Archer had made, or the value which the public would derive from the machine, Mr. Archer declined to accept them, but told the Commissioners that, if they would give him the contract for manufacturing and gumming the postage stamps, he would guarantee to do it for 2,000l. less than the existing contract, and perforate the stamps gratis. No sooner had this proposition been made, than the Commissioners communicated with the other 1157 contractors, and asked them what they were prepared to do. They replied that no one could make the stamps so well or so cheaply as they could, but that rather than lose the Government contract, they would consent to take 1,000l. a year off the contract price. The Commissioners closed with this offer, and thus the public lost at once 1,000l. per annum, and also the use of the invention which the patentee had carried out so successfully. This was conduct which, if it had occurred between individuals in private life, would have caused the party so acting to be scouted from society. All that Mr. Archer wanted was inquiry into the merits of his case; and if that inquiry was granted, he was convinced that it would redound to the advantage of the public.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed—
That a Select Committee be appointee], to inquire and report upon the Agreement entered into between the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and the Patentee, relative to the construction of the Machine for perforating the sheets of Postage Labels, and whether it would be desirable to carry out the principle for general use.
§ MR. GROGANsaid, he had also given notice of a Motion on the same subject, and as it would extend the inquiry somewhat further than the Motion of the hon. Member for Birmingham, he should move it as an Amendment to that Motion.
§
Amendment proposed—
To leave out from the words 'upon the' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, 'present mode of engraving, printing, and gumming the Postage Label Stamps; and likewise whether; and how the perforating machine, invented by the Patentee, could be applied to the same with advantage to the Public,' instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, it was quite true that in the year 1847, the patentee, Mr. Archer, did submit a plan for perforating stamps, which was likely to be attended with considerable advantage to the public; but he expressly stated that with respect to compensation, he should be perfectly satisfied that that should be contingent upon the complete success of the plan, or when it should have received the unqualified approbation of the public, the Postmaster General, and the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. Government could not assent to the terms of the Motion of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz), because it assumed the existence of an agreement, which the Government 1158 denied. As to the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Dublin, there could be no objection to that, and he believed the introduction of perforated stamps was calculated to benefit the public. There were considerable inconveniences attending the postage stamps as at present used, and perforated stamps might be used with advantage. The Government was, therefore, quite willing to grant a Committee in the terms of the Amendment, but not in the terms of the Motion, which presumed there had been this agreement with the previous Government.
§ Mr. MOWATTsaid, the grievance had not originated since the present Ministers came into office, and, probably, they had not had time to inquire into the case. The patentee had offered to print and deliver postage stamps, of a different description to those now in use, whereby a saving would be effected to the country to the amount of 2,000l. a year. He hoped the inquiry would be made to embrace something more than the hon. Secretary proposed, and that he would include the conduct of the officials who had taken advantage of the offer made by the individual, to get the work performed by the contractors at a cheaper rate. They encouraged an individual to state specifically the terms on which he would undertake the work; and when he did so, and superadded the proposal that he would also perforate the stamps for the same sum, they availed themselves of that confidential information for the purpose of getting the contractors to lower their terms from 6d. to 5d. per thousand. This conduct, he contended, was altogether unjustifiable, and calculated to lower public confidence in the good faith and integrity of public boards, and that it was calculated to strike at the root of the entire contract system. He hoped, therefore, the inquiry would be extended to this part of the subject.
§ MR. GEACHhoped the hon. Gentleman (Mr. G. A. Hamilton) would allow the Committee to be granted in the wider terms. If persons were to be treated as Mr. Archer was treated in the present case by a public board, men would have no fair play in introducing improvements for the public benefit. It was not often that they could get so good a case, for public boards did not usually leave themselves so exposed.
§ MR. SPOONERdid not see that there was any question for discussion before the House, seeing his hon. Friend (Mr. Hamilton) had consented to a Committee in the 1159 terms proposed by the hon. Member for the city of Dublin.
MR. HENRY DRUMMONDsaid, the hon. Secretary for the Treasury had not agreed to the first Motion, and the essential facts of the case were never touched by him. He had reason to believe that the practice complained of was by no means uncommon.
§ MR. G. A. HAMILTONhad agreed to the proposal of his hon. Friend (Mr. Grogan), which was more extensive than that of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz), and his desire was, that the fullest inquiry should take place.
§ MR. MUNTZsaid that, on the understanding that the Committee would go fully into the whole question, he was quite willing to withdraw his own Motion, and allow of the adoption of the Amendment of the hon. Member for the city of Dublin.
§ Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn
§ Select Committee appointed, "to inquire and report upon the present mode of engraving, printing, and gumming the Postage Label Stamps; and likewise whether and how the perforating machine, invented by the Patentee, could be applied to the same with advantage to the Public."