§ Mr. Macleanpresented a petition from two short-hand writers, named Edward Morton and Francis N. Walsh, complaining of the monopoly of the Parliamentary and other business enjoyed by Mr. Gurney, from the double appointment of short-hand writer to the Houses of Lords and Commons, which he had held ever since the year 1803; and pointing out the injury arising from it to the profession, and to the public business, by excluding competition, and thus keeping down efficiency, and keeping up a high scale of charges. The petition stated, that in 1803 the business of Parliament was very small; that it had now increased to such an extent that two-thirds of it were done by short-hand writers, not in Mr. Gurney's own establishment, those persons receiving only such share of the business, and such proportion of the fees, as he thought proper to give them; that the number of persons skilled in the art of writing short-hand had also very much increased of late years, and that many of the gentlemen employed as Mr. Gurney's deputies were as competent in all respects as the members of his own establishment; but that he had, ever since his appointment, exercised the exclusive right of attending by himself or deputy all select and other committees, all examinations at the bar of the House, &c, so that for a period of thirty-seven years no other short-hand writer had been allowed to attend any committee, except as his deputy; the parties to private bills not being allowed to employ their own shorthand writer, even to take the speeches of counsel. It also stated, that Mr. Gurney 1261 was short-hand writer to the House of Lords, where he exercised the same exclusive privileges; and to the Privy Council, where he claimed the right to take minutes of the evidence in patent cases at the expense of the parties, to all the Government offices, viz., the. Treasury, India Board, War-office, Admiralty, Customs, Excise, Stamps, Woods and Forests, &c.; to the India House, the Corporation of London, the Bank of England, &c.; and that he was, or claimed to be, short-hand writer to all ecclesiastical, Government, and special commissions, and to most of the incorporated guilds of the city, dock, assurance, and other companies, besides having a very large and lucrative private connection, a great part of which he derived from his official character. The petitioners went on to state that the effect of this monopoly was to lower the character of the profession; and that under the present system the public business could not be well done. Mr. Gurney had always acted upon the right to keep his own establishment fully occupied at all times, tie consequences of which were, that the gentlemen employed as his deputies were not called upon till the last moment, when it was found that their services could not be dispensed with, and that they were constantly, and as a matter of course, displaced from committees, on which they had performed their duties satisfactorily, to make way for one of Mr. Gurney's own establishment. The petition further stated, that previous to the session of 1837, Mr. Gurney had allowed to his deputies about three-fifths of the fees received by him; that since that time they had received three-fourths, Mr. Gurney retaining one-fourth of the fees paid for business done by others as a remuneration for his superintendence of the department. It appeared from the miscellaneous estimates that, upon the average of the last four years, the sums paid to Mr. Gurney by the Treasury, in respect to the public business of Parliament, had exceeded 7,000l. per annum; and from the great increase in the number of election and private bill committees, there must have been an equal amount received from private parties; making the gross receipts, in respect of the Parliamentary business alone, 14,000l. per annum. So that, supposing two-thirds to have been done by deputy, Mr. Gurney, during the last four years, would have received a clear profit 1262 from the labours of others of 2,333l. 6s. 8d. per annum, the remaining one-third being done by that gentleman's own establishment at, of course, a considerable less expense—probably not more than one-third of the sum charged in respect of it; and in that case the whole would have yielded him a clear annual profit of 5.444l 8s.10d; of; this sum being altogether exclusive of the profit upon business arising from peerage, divorce, and appeal cases in the House of Lords, the Privy Council, the Government offices, or any of the other sources before alluded to. The petitioners concluded by stating, that they were prepared to point out a mode by which the public business might be much better done, and at a cheaper rate, and that they confidently believed that the result would be, not only to raise the character of the profession, which was acknowledged to be one of public utility, but to facilitate and give an increased value to the labours of committees, and at the same time that it would effect a considerable saving in point of expense. They therefore prayed that the House would appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the subject.
§ Petition to lie upon the table.