CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS.

HC Deb 13 May 1878 vol 239 cc1761-812

(1.) £12,594, to complete the sum for the Lunacy Commission.

(2.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £42,535, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1879, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Mint, including Expenses of the Coinage.

SIR ANDREW LUSK

asked, if any information could be given the Commit- tee as to the erection of a new Mint? The present building was not at all in accordance with the spirit of the times; and although successive Chancellors of the Exchequer had promised to give the question of acquiring another building their serious attention, nothing had yet been done in the matter.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, on more than one occasion Bills had been brought in for the purpose of erecting a new Mint on a fresh site; but, considering the present financial state of the country, he thought this was hardly the time to propose to spend a large sum of money in the purchase or erection of another building. Nothing was being done now in reference to the matter; and although everyone must admit that the existing Mint was not at all such as could be desired, yet the present was not the time when he could say anything should be attempted.

SIR ANDREW LUSK

did not find fault with the present Chancellor of the Exchequer any more than either of his Predecessors; but he desired to impress upon the Government the propriety of possessing a Mint worthy of the country, and a building in a more convenient situation than the present one occupied. He trusted the question would not be lost sight of.

MR. BIGGAR

insisted that if a new Mint were built, the proper place for it was the centre of the City.

MR. O'DONNELL

objected to the sum of £12 paid for religious services, and asked what particular services were applicable to the operations of the Mint. If the Vote was something which had been handed down to posterity, it was now time that it should disappear from the Estimates.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, he could not give the information desired, as, at the present time, he was not sufficiently up to the details of his Office; but, before Report upon Supply, he would become acquainted with the reasons for inserting the amount in the Vote, and he hoped then to be able to satisfy the hon. Member as to the reasons why the sum was asked for.

MR. MACDONALD

hoped, when the hon. Baronet gave this information as to the money paid to the chaplain, he would also be able to inform the Committee why £3 a-year was paid to a sexton.

MR. BIGGAR

objected to the reply being postponed. He found no fault with the hon. Baronet for not being able at present to enter into details; but he protested against the system which was the usual course adopted now—of giving no information at all. Unless an answer were given he would divide the Committee.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, he had excused himself for not answering the Question on the ground that he had recently taken the Office of Secretary to the Treasury, and had not had time to make himself acquainted with details. But he thought he could now explain the reasons for inserting in the Estimates the sums payable to the chaplain and the sexton. These were allowances which had been made for a considerable period, and they originated from the fact that the Mint formed part of the Tower itself in olden days. At present the Mint officers had seats in the Tower chapel, and the Mint authorities made the grants which appeared in the Estimates to continue the privilege to their officers of having those seats.

MR. BIGGAR

thoroughly excused the hon. Baronet for not at first being able to answer the Question; but, still, he thought someone should be present to give information on Questions which had suggested themselves after a careful study of the Estimates.

SIR ANDREW LUSK

said, the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury was quite right with regard to what he had stated as to the Mint officers having seats in the Tower chapel; and, upon the whole, he thought the sum set down in the Estimates a fair charge to make for such accommodation.

MR. O'DONNELL

observed, that he had a great regard for what was called the ornamental parts of Estimates; but he considered ornamentation had gone a little too far. Although some centuries ago the Mint employés might necessarily have been members of the Church of England, it could not be said that this was the case now, and so justified the payment to the chaplain. At any rate, the allowance to the sexton could not be defended on that ground, for he (Mr. O'Donnell) did not suppose that any of the officials particularly preferred being buried within the precincts of the Tower; and even if they did, he did not see why the services of a sexton should be subsidized specially on their behalf. The best course to adopt would be to omit these Votes at present, and then, if any reason for restoring them was shown, they could be replaced on Report. Therefore, he moved the reduction of the Vote by £15—the sums payable to the chaplain and the sexton.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £42,520, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1879, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Mint, including Expenses of the Coinage."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)

MR. BIGGAR

did not see that it was necessary for every employé at the Mint to be a member of the Church of England to justify the payment of the chaplain; because that Church had within its communion men as broad as Mr. Bradlaugh, and others as advanced in Roman Catholicism as Cardinal Manning. That being so, there was no necessity to suppose that all the employés were members of the Church of England, especially as various gentlemen filled the pulpit of the Tower chapel; and, consequently, the congregation had some variety in religious views.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

, while hoping the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) would not divide the Committee, trusted that the Secretary to the Treasury would turn his attention to the payment of these sums to the chaplain and sexton.

Question put, and negatived.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(3.) £14,024, to complete the sum for the National Debt Office.

(4.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £22,675, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1879, connected with the Patent Law Amendment Act, the Registration of Trade Marks Act, and the Registration of Designs Act.

MR. MELLOR

complained, that notwithstanding all the changes which had been made in this office, the effect of the alterations had been to increase the Votes each year; These increases were becoming very serious, and required explanation. The Clerk to the Commissioners had been advanced £500 a-year; the Librarian, whose salary, in 1877, was £400 a-year, had had another £100 a-year given him; and the salaries of clerks, which formerly stood at £1,937, had now reached £3,600. Unless he had satisfactory explanations of these increases, he must move to reduce the Vote.

MR. MACDONALD

complained that the office keeper had no less than four appointments. This multiplication of offices seemed to be taking hold of the Government to an alarming extent; and it was patent, that either the work in each instance was very easily performed, or that all four positions might be merged into one. Unless he were satisfied with the answer on this matter, he should move the rejection of the whole Vote.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, the Patent Office had been in a transition state for some time past, and a great deal of additional duties had been imposed upon it, necessitating extra work. The Registration of Designs and the Registration of Trade Marks had of late been handed to that office, which had, necessarily, occasioned an increase in the Establishment. He would remind the Committee that there was a set-off against this increased expenditure, and that this was one of the offices by which the State made a profit. The Estimates showed that this year the Registration of Designs was calculated to produce £4,000, and the Registration of Trade Marks £5,000, while the receipts from the other branches of the Patent Office amounted to no less a sum than £ 172,000; so that this office, estimated to cost the nation £27,175, was really a source of Revenue to the extent of £181,000. As to the office keeper having more than one office to look after, it was very often convenient to employ one man to do the work in several offices, and it would be far more costly to have a separate man, with a distinct salary, to look after each office; therefore, the State benefited by the present arrangement.

MR. MACDONALD

said, he found that this office keeper had no less than £416 for looking after four offices; this he regarded as an extravagant waste of public money. He was sure people in large businesses, who employed office keepers, would be surprised to hear that this individual had £416 a-year for the work he did; and he desired to know from the hon. Baronet, whether this person was the son of a Nobleman who took a considerable sum out of the country in this way?

SIR ANDREW LUSK

said, the Secretary to the Treasury had stated that the Patent Office produced £181,000 to the State; but had it struck the hon. Baronet whence that sum came? It came from the poor fellows who devoted their time to patenting things for the benefit of society, and who were punished by this office in the shape of fines, penalties, and stamps, to the extent of £181,000 a-year. Surely, the office ought to be more moderate in its demands on that class of people. The truth of the matter was, that a gentleman with £10,000 a-year never invented very much, and the country ought not to make so much out of the brains of the poor, and often struggling, inventor.

MR. GREGORY

said, the question of the Patent Laws, if discussed in all its bearings and operations, would be found to be a very large one. When it was said that an inventor ought not to be charged fees on securing a patent, they must remember that a patent was a monopoly which the patentee had the sole right to exercise, and it was for the interests of the public that persons to whom these privileges were granted should pay a contribution to the State on account of them. The Committee who had considered the whole question, and on which he served, had heard evidence on both sides—the hardships of charging fees, and the injury which would be done if they were not charged, by giving encouragement to frivolous or useless applications. As to the office keeper having many offices to look after, ho might mention that they were very scattered; that, although in. charge of one person, he must necessarily employ subordinates to do the work required of him, and, of course, he paid these persons out of his total salary of £416. Therefore, he did not receive nearly as much money for his services as the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) seemed to infer.

DR. LUSH

observed, that from the statement of the Secretary to the Treasury, it was clear that the efforts of genius were weighted to the extent of nearly £200,000 a-year in the shape of patents. It was to the interest of the country for those gentlemen, whose inventive power was used for the benefit of the nation, to see that the expenditure which they incurred should be diminished as much as possible. The arguments of the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory), to the effect that one person should have charge of these offices because they were not contiguous, did not at all apply—in fact, he considered it a reason why such office should be separately looked after. Although he supposed there was no wish to divide the Committee on this subject, yet he could not but consider that there was a great want of economy in leaving these four offices under the care of one man; and he hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would consider the matter, with the view of preventing such a discussion arising again.

MR. MACDONALD

said, the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) had stated that the office keeper paid his subordinates. If that were so, why was there a charge of £17 included in the Vote for office-washing? The chances were, that as such a charge was made in one case, that the office keeper had all his other payments made tip to him. It was hard that men, who exhausted their time and energies in order to contribute their quota to the inventions of the day, should be so heavily weighted as to pay towards the support of a mere door or office keeper, who had £416 a-year. If sufficient reasons were not given to justify the item, he would divide the Committee on it.

MR. MELLOR

said, no invention was perfect without the application of the technical knowledge of those who had practically worked the machine, and who, by their experience of defects in the mechanical construction of the machine, had suggested alterations equivalent almost to the full value of the invention itself, and yet all these inventors were taxed to meet the charges of the Patent Office. Considering that the explanations as to the whole Vote were not satisfactory, he moved that the salary of the Clerk to the Commissioners be reduced by £500 per annum. The Assistant Registrar, to whom they paid £600 a-year, was competent to discharge all the duties required, and as the duties cast upon the Chief Clerk were only ministerial, he thought the salary of the Clerk to the Commissioners might well be reduced by the sum he now proposed.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Item of £1,500, for the Salary of the Clerk to the Commissioners, be reduced by the sum of £500."—(Mr. Mellor.)

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

quite appreciated the value of inventions; but, as he had pointed out before, the additional work which had been thrown upon the Patent Office in the last few years necessitated the employment of additional clerks. He would remind the Committee that they had nothing to do with the hardship to individuals consequent on the charges for patents; because they were at that moment considering the Estimates, and not the law relating to Patents. So long as the 15&16 Vict. lasted, the charges for Patents as now made must be continued, and no discussion of that kind, although it might be very proper and very fair on a question for the amendment of the Patent Laws, could prevent those charges being made. As to the Clerk to the Commissioners, he previously had £1,000 a-year, which, on the additional work to which he had referred being put on the office, was raised to the present amount.

MR. O'DONNELL

admitted, that that was not the exact time to raise a general discussion on the principles of the Patent Laws; but he did not think it could be denied that advantages were obtained from discussing the operations of those laws when the Estimates were under consideration. One effect which such a discussion might have would be to induce the Government to take in hand the rectification of the existing law; and no better instance of the desirableness of such a change could be found than in the fact, as disclosed by that discussion, of Members of both sides of the House desiring an alteration. The hon. Baronet had defended the payment of such large salaries to officials in the Patent Office on the ground that the State benefited by that office. The proper thing would be to estimate the value of these officials to the country, and not allow any advantage to them because of the amount of profit brought in by the working of the Patent Office. The working of that office, he was afraid, was in very many respects unjust to individuals and injurious to general interests. It might be quite true that men who derived an increased value for their property from public protection ought to contribute something to the support of the State which gave them that protection, and which enhanced the value of their property. That was a principle which he desired to see widely extended and carried much beyond the limits of the operations of the Patent Office. What he wished to see was, that anyone who made a profit in consequence of the protection of the State should pay to the Public Revenue a sum in proportion to, and corresponding to, the value which he derived from that State protection. The question was, whether the best time for levying these rates on inventions was after the property had begun to be valuable, or before it had come into existence at all? Hon. Gentlemen defended the levying of heavy stamp duties on applicants for patents; but would it not be much better to reduce this scale of duties, and then for the officers of the State to keep a sharp look out on the profits derived from the patents, and make a charge thereon?

THE CHAIRMAN

reminded the hon. Member that the question before the Committee was the Amendment to decrease the salary of the Clerk to the Commissioners, and not the principle under which the charges for patents were levied.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, he thought he had a right to reply to arguments used, seeing that the real question before the Committee was whether the Patent Office was too expensive? He confessed that he thought it was, and that some of the items charged for it should be reduced as far as possible.

MR. BIGGAR

said, that this gentleman was only a kind of general overlooker, without any special knowledge or qualifications. He did not, therefore, think that he should be paid such a large sum by way of salary.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 33; Noes 87: Majority 54.—(Div. List, No. 117.)

Original Question again proposed.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, there was an item of £500 for the attendance of police at the Patent Office. He should like to know something of the rate of remuneration paid to the police, the reason he had for asking the Question being the extremely scanty remuneration allowed to the police in attendance at the House of Commons.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, that orders had been issued from the Home Office to the effect that, for the future, all police constables employed at the different Public Offices should receive the same remuneration as those who were in attendance at the House of Commons. The hon. Member must not forget that employment in the Public Offices was looked upon by constables as one of the prizes of the force.

MR. MACDONALD

drew attention to the item for the salary of an office keeper of the Patent Office. The holder of that post, it seemed, also held several similar offices, receiving, in the aggregate, about £450 a-year. In his opinion, £200 a-year would be a very fair salary for a door keeper. He begged to move that the Vote be reduced by £185, paid to the doorkeeper of the Patent Office.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Item of £185, for the Salary of the Office Keeper, be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. Macdonald.)

MR. BIGGAR

could not see on what grounds this gentleman was paid for washing out the office, while some charwomen were actually employed to do the work. He did not think the Government should oppose the reduction.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, that an office keeper must have some salary, and perhaps £185 was not too much. By giving the holder of the office several salaries for attending to several contiguous offices, an economy was effected. If this sum were omitted from the Vote, the keeper of the Patent Office would have no salary as such. With regard to the washing, for which £17 was allowed, it was paid for keeping clean the towels supplied to the officers of the establishment. A similar sum was paid in most offices for a like service, and were it not paid, an addition to the salary of the office keeper would have to be made in lieu thereof.

MAJOR NOLAN

observed, that there was a great deal of dissatisfaction with respect to the Patent Office. A great deal of money was paid into that office, and an absurdly small sum was laid out. There was a bad library, and a very insufficient catalogue, at the Patent Office. No doubt, the officials were very polite; but much less advantages were enjoyed by inventors in this country than were conceded to them at the Patent Office in the United States.

THE CHAIRMAN

reminded the hon. and gallant Member that the only question before the Committee was with respect to the item of £185 for the salary of the office keeper, and that he was not at liberty, at that point, to go into other matters.

MAJOR NOLAN

said, he would reserve his remarks for another occasion.

MR. MACDONALD

thought the explanations given had not been satisfactory. He felt bound to record his protest against the Vote by dividing the Committee on the question of the accumulation of offices on one individual. £400 a-year was far too much money to pay for keeping offices clean; while, at the same time, charwomen were paid for washing them out.

MR. T. CAVE

remarked, that the keeper of the Patent Office must be a man of responsibility. He had to lock up a place, which contained many very valuable articles after the different officers had left; and was not a mere office cleaner, as had been suggested. He thought, therefore, that in a great Department like the Patent Office, the sum of £185 was not too large a salary for an office keeper.

MR. BIGGAR

said, that the salary was not too much, if the holder of it performed his duties. But, as he held several similar offices, the duties must evidently be left to subordinates. He should suggest that three persons should be selected to fill the other offices held by the keeper of the Patent Office.

MR. MACDONALD

said, that as nearly all the Public Offices opened and closed at similar hours, it was clear that the holder of those various offices must do his work by deputy in three of them, as he could only be in one place himself. He strongly protested against delegated responsibility, and would divide the Committee upon the matter.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 15; Noes 108: Majority 93.—(Div. List, No. 118.)

Original Question again proposed.

MR. O'DONNELL

found an item down of £150 a-year for the Lord Chancellor's Messenger. He was unaware of the special functions of the Lord Chancellor's Messenger, or whether they could be performed by some of the other very numerous messengers in the Public Service. There were 20 first-class messengers at £94 to £109 a-year; 9 second-class at £55 to £91 a-year; and, again, in the Designs' Registry, there were others. He, therefore, begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £150.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Item of £100, for the Salary of the Lord Chancellor's Messenger, be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

explained that the Vote was for the subsistence allowed the Messenger when travelling, and for other necessary expenses. The item was placed in this Vote under the 40 & 41 Vict. c. 41, which authorized the employment of this officer.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

drew attention to the item of £3,820, for the cost of advertising the Stationery Office in The London Gazette. A foot-note in the Estimates stated that this item did not represent an actual cost transaction, but the amount that would have been paid to The London Gazette for 16 advertisements at the usual rate. He could not understand this; for, if really paid for advertising, it would be a very large amount, while, if not paid, such an item ought not to be put in the Estimates. He would merely call the hon. Baronet's attention to the item, as, probably, among multitudes of others, it had escaped his attention.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, that the receipts of the Patent Office justified the increase that had been made in the salaries of the officials within the last year or two. With respect to the advertisements, money was never paid for advertisements of this kind; but the amount which they represented was inserted under its proper head in the Estimates, the advertisements which emanated from the Stationery Office being debited to that Department.

MR. BIGGAR

thought the time had now arrived when the question of the Patent Office generally should be raised. The hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) had pointed out that the Patent Office was conducted in a very improper manner, and that very large fees were charged to patentees, and little or no return was made to them. The Government did not go to the expense of supplying a proper museum for patents; nor did it give a complete list of patents. Patentees were in some respects a very worthy class, for they went to a great deal of trouble and expense, and frequently ran the risk of considerable loss. There ought to be a better mode of ascertaining what patents had been already granted. In one instance he knew of, the patentee of an improvement in iron shipbuilding had his invention used by the British Government; but, when he asked for payment, it was refused, and that although the invention was perfectly new and had never been used before. In his opinion, the system of patents should undergo thorough revision and improvement in the interests of patentees. He would give another illustration of the working of the present system by stating what had happened to a person he was acquainted with. A small manufacturer of machinery invented some improvement; but a person saw it while advancing to completion, and got a large sum from some persons in Scotland for the patent, while the real inventor obtained nothing.

MAJOR NOLAN

wished for some information from the Government as to whether they intended to bring in a new Patent Law Amendment Bill that Session? The charge for patenting inventions was really a tax on the inventor. The Government ought to bring in a Bill at an early period to prove that they were earnest in the matter, for on previous occasions they had never attempted to press it to a second reading. In the United States, the system of cataloguing was very superior to that adopted here. An inventor was put to immense trouble in the London Patent Office, in going through long specifications and obscure drawings, and had great difficulty in finding out what had been previously patented. On taking up an American catalogue, an inventor had simply to turn it over and find a few pictures—something between freehand drawing and engineering sketches—which explained in a general way what patents were about, and thus saved an infinitude of trouble.

MR. MONK

said, he thought some explanation was necessary as to the cost of the Patent Office, in reference principally to the charges included in the Estimates for the cost of lithographing designs and printing specifications, which were included in applications for patents. He could have understood this increase, if the applications for patents had also increased in number, and the fees paid by applicants had also, of necessity, been larger; but he found that the contrary was the case. There certainly was an increase in the fees for patents to the extent of £1,000 on the year; but the charges for printing and lithography in connection with the Patent Office had risen from £10,600 to £15,700. On the face of the Estimate, it certainly seemed strange that the increased revenue should be so largely out of proportion with the expenditure, and he hoped that a sufficient explanation would be forthcoming.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

said, he had personally inspected the Patent Office in Washington, to which his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Galway (Major Nolan) had referred. The building had since then, unfortunately, been destroyed by fire; but the lithographed drawings of the inventions patented were saved, and they had been so well executed that, although the deposited models were burnt with the building, there could be no difficulty in constructing fresh models with the assistance of the drawings. This, he thought, showed the importance of preserving accurate lithographs of the models which were deposited in the Patent Office in London.

MR. MUNTZ

said, he was bound to corroborate the statements which had been made by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway as to the necessity for some alteration in the Patent Laws. During the last three or four years, Bills with that object had been introduced and passed by the House of Lords; but the House of Commons had allowed them to drop without even taking the trouble to examine the measures. As an instance of the necessity of amending the law, he might mention that if an Englishman patented an invention, however great the expenditure might be—and it was almost prohibitory to a poor man—he was bound within a certain time to manufacture a certain number of the articles which he had patented, and to offer them for sale, or the patent lapsed; but this was not the case with a foreigner, who might patent an invention, and then, without impairing his patent right, refuse either to make and sell the patented articles, or to grant licences to any other persons to make them. The Remington rifle afforded a case in point. If the patentee would grant licences, English manufacturers could make the weapons at about two-thirds of the price charged by the American patentees; but he had refused to do so, and still retained his patent rights.

MR. BELL

agreed in thinking that the Patent Laws required amendment, and suggested that some steps should be taken to guard against any number of persons patenting the same idea, which was constantly done under the operation of the existing law.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

admitted that the whole subject of the Patent Laws was one well worthy the consideration of the House. It had, as a matter of fact, already occupied the attention of both branches of the Legislature on more than one occasion; but he was afraid that, in view of the progress which had been made with Government Business in the course of the present Session, it would not be possible for the Government to introduce a Bill on the subject of the Patent Law in the course of the present Session. In answer to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk), he had to say that the increase in the item for the Stationery Office was due to reforms in the management of the Department which had been introduced at the instance of his hon. Friend the Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. Winn), and would result in a considerable saving as far as the Stationery Vote in the aggregate was concerned.

MAJOR NOLAN

said, he was not quite satisfied as to the cataloguing of patents, and again asked who was responsible for the way in which the work was or was not done? He did not think the Government ought to be satisfied with the way in which the work was now done; the Members of the House generally were certainly not satisfied, and as a Bill on the question was not to be introduced this Session by the Government, he thought some further explanation ought to be given forthwith. He had no doubt that a clever mechanic could make a good model of an invention from the existing drawings, in case the original model was destroyed; but for purposes of reference, he thought care should be taken to preserve a sufficient number of drawings and specifications in reference to any inventions that might be patented. In this respect, he thought the English law relating to patents was very much behind the law which existed in America. He should like to know whether there was any intention, on the part of the Government, to adopt an improved system of cataloguing patents?

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, he was not in a position to say more than that it was in contemplation to improve the system by means of which the existing Patent Law was administered, and, at the earliest possible moment, to amend the law itself.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(5.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £20,247, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1879, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's Paymaster General in London and Dublin.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, that notwithstanding the exalted position of the Paymaster General, he seemed to receive no salary, a fact which he should like to have explained. He supposed that the right hon. Gentleman who held the office did not figure for a salary in connection with this particular office, because he was paid for some other office which he held under the Crown. This plurality of offices was to his mind very unsatisfactory, and he should be pleased to see it abolished; but he supposed it could not be done in the course of the present Session. There was another fact in re- gard to the Vote to which he wished to call attention—that was the comparative smallness of the salaries paid in Ireland and England. He found that in the Dublin branch of the Office there was employed a charwoman who only received 7s. per week. He should have thought that a Liberal Government would have been able to afford a little higher wage than this to the poor old creature; because, looking to the wages paid to similar people engaged in the English branch of the Service, it appeared that the charwomen were paid 12s. a-week at the Mint in London.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

said, he was prepared to grant that a charwoman could live more cheaply in Dublin than in London; but even that fact did not justify so great a disparity as existed between 7s. a-week and 12s., for doing precisely the same kind of work. Looking through the whole list of officers and salaries, he found that the salaries paid were in inverse ratio to the duties performed; and he could not help thinking, therefore, that the Government ought to consider the amounts paid to the humbler officials who received salaries barely sufficient for their maintenance.

MR. MACDONALD

said, he had again to call the attention of the Committee and the public to the plurality of offices and salaries in the Public Service. He found, that under the present Vote, one of the clerks received, in addition to his salary of £400 a-year, £50 per annum for certain duties he was supposed to perform in connection with the verification of Income Tax Returns. If the same persons were engaged in trading or manufacturing pursuits, and by means of rules, arrangements, and combinations among themselves, were able to draw three, four, or five distinct sets of wages, there would be an outcry raised against them, and he could therefore see no reason why they should be allowed to do it in the service of the country.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, that whatever might be urged against a plurality of offices and salaries in some branches of the Public Service, the objection did not apply in the present instance, inasmuch as the additional £50 a-year were paid for extra services performed in the office from which the gentleman received the larger salary of £400. The salary was simply divided, instead of being paid in a lump sum. With regard to the fact of the Paymaster General appearing to receive no salary, he must say that the office was formerly filled by a gentleman who held other offices; and the present holder of the position, having been abroad as one of the Commissioners connected with the purchase of the Suez Canal Shares, whilst resigning the lucrative appointments he held prior to going out, resumed the duties of this particular branch of those appointments on his return, without any amount being set down for his salary as Paymaster General. With regard to the wages paid to the charwomen in Dublin and London, he could only say that the amount was regulated by the laws of supply and demand, which were in turn regulated by the cost of living in the two cities.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

said, the sum of 7s. per week was, to his knowledge, much less than was paid to any decent charwoman in any private office in Dublin, and he hoped, at least the ordinary scale of payment might be applied in this case.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he noticed a charge of £30 per annum for a "non-resident housemaid," and asked for an explanation. He knew absenteeism was the curse of Ireland, but was not prepared for absentee housemaids.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, the explanation simply was that the housemaid in question did not live on the premises where her duties were performed.

MR. BIGGAR

called attention to the fact that an item appeared in the Vote for the salary of a Deputy Treasury Remembrancer and Deputy Paymaster in Ireland. He asked for information as to the date of the appointment and the duties which were done in exchange for a salary of £1,300 a-year, originally fixed at £1,200?

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, the office was created in 1871, and the fact that the salary now paid was different from that originally fixed was that the office had been re-organized since it was created.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

said, he had been struck by the phraseology used in drawing the Estimates. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) had drawn attention to the "non-resident housemaid;" he might also have informed the Committee that there was a sum set down for the payment of "redundant clerks." A Society had been established in Ireland for the preservation of the Irish language; and he thought it would not be amiss to start a similar Society on this side of the Channel for the preservation of the English language.

MR. MELDON

said, he had often wondered what the office of Treasury Remembrancer was. The Committee had been told that the office was created in 1871; but he, on the other hand, had heard a rumour that it was not a new creation at all, but was an old office which had been suddenly resuscitated for the benefit of a gentleman who had been sent to Ireland from England.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, he found the office in existence at the time when he went to the Treasury, and he had been informed that it was created in the year 1871—beyond that he could say nothing.

MR. MELDON

said, he should ask for further information on this and other kindred questions on the Report.

MR. BIGGAR

suggested that one of the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the front Opposition bench, who were in Office in 1871, should give some information as to the creation of the office. The salary paid seemed to him to be out of proportion to the duties attaching to it, and he should, therefore, move to reduce the amount by £200.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £19,047, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1879, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's Paymaster General in London and Dublin."—(Mr. Biggar.)

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

observed, that although he was not a Member of the late Government, yet he knew, and, indeed, it was perfectly well known in Ireland, that this Treasury Remembrancer (Mr. Herbert Murray) was sent over by the late Government, in order to introduce economy in the Public Offices of that country, whether they were "redundant" or not. That gentleman had been the main source and mainspring of all the economy that had been effected in Ireland of late years. If the doctrines of Mr. Herbert Murray were more completely carried out, a great many of the redundant offices in Ireland would be suppressed.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, the last speaker had correctly stated that the duty of this officer was to assist economy in every possible way he could.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

said, these professions of economy were all very well, but the result of this gentleman's labours was to present the Committee with an increase of £989 on the Estimate of last year.

MR. MELDON

did not know whether this gentleman was a deserving officer or not, but he was rather inclined to doubt it. Last year, or the year before, he was in the Four Courts in Dublin, when he saw a troop of soldiers in red uniforms marching by with a civilian at their head. He endeavoured to follow them, but they eluded him, for they appeared to have gone down into the bowels of the earth. The next day, about the same hour, he was pursuing his avocation in the Four Courts, and he noticed a body of soldiers in white uniforms, led by the same civilian. He discovered that the civilian was Mr. Herbert Murray, who was discharging his duties as economiser in Dublin. It appeared that certain contracts for coals had been entered into, and that there was likely to be a large loss in consequence thereof. A question had arisen as to whether the coals were Scotch coals or Welsh coals, and Mr. Herbert Murray placed himself in command, first of Scotch soldiers, and secondly of Welsh soldiers, in order to explore the cellars of the Four Courts, and to ascertain whether the contract of coals had been properly carried out or not. That, in his (Mr. Meldon's) judgment, was not a proper way of conducting such a business. He thought there was not a proper inspection. It was alleged that much benefit had been derived from Mr. Murray's labours; but he maintained that the Treasury had no right to create a situation of this kind for any purpose whatever; and he wanted to know whether there was any legal justification for this gentleman having a very substantial salary? He thought the Committee ought to be on its guard against the creation of such offices. If, when the matter came up again on the Report, it should turn out that the appointment had not been legally made, he should certainly move to reduce the Vote.

Question put, and negatived.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(6.) £8,353, to complete the sum for the Public Works Loan and West India Islands Relief Commission.

(7.) £18,277, to complete the sum for the Public Record Office.

(8.) £39,553, to complete the sum for the Registrar General's Office.

Resolutions to be reported.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £376,545, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1879, for Stationery, Printing, Binding, and Printed Books for the several Departments of Government in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and some Dependencies, and for Stationery, Binding, Printing, and Paper for the two Houses of Parliament, including the Salaries and Expenses of the Stationery Office.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

asked for explanations respecting the sums paid to officers of the War Office and the Admiralty, for assisting in the preparation of the Army List and the Navy List?

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

replied, that the sums were paid because special knowledge was required in the preparation of these Lists.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

said, every Member of the Committee must admit, that as far as writing materials in the House were concerned, there was no cause whatever of complaint. He thought, however, there was a subject of legitimate complaint with regard to the unwillingness or inability of the Printing Department to forward Parliamentary Papers beyond a radius of four miles from the House of Commons. When hon. Members were called upon to pay so large a bill, they ought, at least, to have the satisfaction of knowing that they obtained the worth of their money, and that they got the work thoroughly well done. It was very inconvenient to Members to have to pay a heavy postage on their Parliamentary Papers if they chanced to live beyond four miles from the House of Commons. He hoped the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) would see his way to effecting some improvement in this direction. He thought that no hon. Member living in London ought to have any difficulty in getting his Parliamentary Papers free and at a reasonable time.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, it was not the duty of the Stationery Office to deliver the Votes. That rested with the Vote Office of this House, and was regulated by the Speaker and the officers of the House. As attention had now been called to the matter, it would, no doubt, come under the notice of those who were responsible for the delivery of the Votes.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

pointed out that a new item had been introduced of £3,000, in the shape of a special grant for the preparation and publication of Hansard's Debates. He desired to know what arrangements had been made with reference to the reports published by Mr. Hansard?

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, the arrangement made for the payment of the £3,000 was a temporary one for this Session only. That sum was to be paid for a Report of discussions in Committee, and of other Business of the House. Last Session, attention was called by one or more hon. Members to the incompleteness of the Reports of the proceedings in the House for purposes of reference. The present Leader of the House, accordingly, thought it right to make an experiment, in order to see whether a more complete record of the proceedings of the House for purposes of reference was valued by hon. Members. For that reason, the present item for a definite sum had been introduced into the Estimate.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

said, he must revert to the question of the Army and Navy Lists. In the case of the London Gazette, money was obtained by the sale and advertisements, and the sums were here stated. He fancied that the Army and Navy Lists must likewise bring in a considerable revenue. There were advertisements in both those publications, and the sale must be very large; but he observed no entry under these heads.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

imagined that the receipts from these publications were entered under some general heading. He would, however, make inquiries, and endeavour to explain to his hon. Friend on another oc- casion what was the real state of the case.

MR. MELDON

said, it appeared that The London Gazette, The Edinburgh Gazette, and The Dublin Gazette realized large profits. The charge for advertisements in those papers was extremely high, and pressed very heavily on the public. Many advertisements were required by Acts of Parliament to be inserted in The Gazettes, and it appeared to be a great hardship that the public should be obliged to advertise in those papers, if the cost was larger than it would be in any other papers, supposing that the advertisers were at liberty to make a selection.

SIR ANDREW LUSK

desired to say a few words on the item relating to the publication of Hansard's Debates. It would be remembered that the Chancellor of the Exchequer put this down as one of the Supplemental Votes, and asked for £100 in order to raise a discussion, so that the subject had already been before the Committee in that shape. But the right hon. Gentleman shunted the general discussion to some more convenient season, and the present time, it appeared to him, was a convenient season to speak about it. He regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not in his place to explain why the item had been introduced. He did not know whether this was a proper sum of money to expend for such a purpose. He did not speak much in the House himself, but other hon. Members did. The positions which hon. Members occupied in the columns of the newspapers differed very considerably. Every Minister, of course, got a long account of his speech; but when A or B spoke, the reporter wrote—"After a few words from, so and so." When somebody else addressed the House, the report would go on to say—"After a little conversation," and so forth. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer was quite right in taking measures to secure the publication of something like a fair abstract of the speeches delivered in the House. They did not want very long reports of speeches, but reports condensed in an intelligible manner. What was required was a fair abstract of the speeches which were delivered in the House, and, as far as he could see, Hansard had latterly given a fair abstract of the proceedings. They considered them- selves to be a very important Assembly, and they naturally thought that there ought to be a reliable account of their proceedings. Looking at Hansard's Debates, he was of opinion that that publication did now give a fair abstract of the proceedings of the House of Commons. He congratulated the Chancellor of the Exchequer on having had the courage to put this item in the Estimate, and he hoped the House would agree to it. He believed that brighter days were coming with regard to the reports of Parliamentary debates.

MR. SULLIVAN

was not aware whether any Minister had offered an explanation of the new arrangement with Mr. Hansard, and had stated how long it was to last. If an explanation had been offered, he could only express his regret that he had not been present to hear it, because he was most anxious to know exactly what was proposed to be done. He hoped, however, that whatever was done would be of a temporary nature; for he thought the Government ought to appoint a small Committee to inquire into what was practicable, as well as desirable, in this matter. They would then find that some hon. Members were acquainted with reporting, and that much more than they anticipated might be done for a moderate sum of money. There would be ample time to consider the subject between now and next Session. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Baronet the Member for Finsbury (Sir Andrew Lusk), as to the excellent plan of reporting speeches in abstract, he (Mr. Sullivan) thought it would be a great deal better if they were spoken in abstract.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, he had already stated that this sum had been put down for the present year in order to test the work which was being done. It was proposed that, with a view to future reference, a more complete account of the discussions of the House should be printed.

MR. O'DONNELL

observed, that this question of Hansard's Debates, and the advantage of having an improved record of the proceedings of the House, ought not to exclude what was the main ground of complaint with regard to the reporting of speeches. He knew that on two or three occasions, both this year and last year, and he believed in previous years also, the arrangements for report- ing speeches in the House were made the subject of complaint both in the House and also, he believed, by the Speaker. The Speaker's advice was asked upon the question. The readiness of hon. Members to subsidize Hansard's Debates, ought, by no means, to allow them to forget that the arrangements for reporting the debates in the House were extremely defective. Those arrangements were especially defective as regarded the Irish Members and the representation of Irish newspapers. An abuse—for it was nothing less than a very serious abuse—had grown up, by which a monopoly of the reporting of the debates of the House was given to the London newspapers. This was a very serious matter. Practically, it resulted in the habitual dissemination of most erroneous and misleading reports on the numerous Irish questions of importance.

THE CHAIRMAN

intimated that the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) was not addressing his remarks to the merits of the question under consideration. The Vote had reference to the debates in Hansard, and not to the reports published in particular newspapers.

MR. O'DONNELL

proceeded to say, that for the purpose of raising this discussion, he objected to this subsidizing of Hansard's Debates, inasmuch as that proposal was calculated to divert the attention of the Committee from a much more important question—namely, the general reporting of the debates of the House.

THE CHAIRMAN

, again interposing, pointed out that the hon. Member for Dungarvan would have an opportunity of calling attention to that subject on another occasion. The question now before the Committee was, whether the grant for Hansard's Debates should be paid for out of this Vote? It was not competent for the hon. Member to enter into the general subject of reporting the debates in journals which were not subsidized.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, that in point of fact, Hansard's Debates were compiled from a Press representation which did not include any Irish journals. This circumstance re-acted against the value of Hansard's Debates, as records of the Parliamentary action of Irish Members in the present Parliament.

THE CHAIRMAN

pointed out, that that subject was very remote from the question before the Committee, which had reference to a special grant for Hansard's Debates. On this Vote, the hon. Member for Dungarvan could not raise a question as to whether the Irish Press was represented or not in the Reporters' Gallery.

MR. BIGGAR

thought that, according to the Chairman's ruling, he should be able to show that the hon. Member for Dungarvan was thoroughly in Order. As he understood the matter, Mr. Hansard did not have a reporter in the Gallery under his own control and in his own pay; but he took his summary from one or other of the London morning papers. Well, those papers did not interest themselves about Irish questions, and the practical result was that Irish questions were more or less overlooked. On the other hand, if the Dublin papers, which naturally took a special interest in Irish subjects, were represented in the Gallery, the result would be that Hansard would have another selection, instead of being obliged to rely on the London morning papers. On that ground, he thought the hon. Member for Dungarvan was in Order in his line of argument. He might, perhaps, be mistaken in supposing that Mr. Hansard had not a special reporting staff of his own; but he understood that Mr. Hansard had not, and he had always understood so.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

believed the object of the Vote under discussion was, that Mr. Hansard should have in the House a reporter, who would take particular cognizance of the debates. and who would more completely represent what took place than the ordinary staff of a newspaper could possibly do. In order to get this more complete record, a special reporter had been placed in the Gallery, and this item had been submitted to the consideration of the Committee.

MR. O'DONNELL

wished to urge, as an additional reason, that in the case of Hansard's Debates, whenever a question of their general accuracy arose, a mistake attributed to an English Member could be corrected by a representation being made to the London Press, whereas there was no check whatever on Hansard's accuracy as long as the Irish Press was excluded from the House. He thought that the Irish Press ought to be represented, in order to afford a check which would secure that the public duty entrusted to Hansard would be properly performed.

THE CHAIRMAN

here pointed out again to the hon. Member for Dungarvan, that the question before the Committee was the particular Vote respecting Hansard's Debates. It was not competent for the hon. Member to travel away from the subject, by raising a question as to the propriety or otherwise of the Irish Press being represented in the Gallery of the House.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

understood the right hon. Gentleman the Speaker was responsible for the arrangements in the Gallery, and he might make some provision in the direction required.

MR. GRAY

thought the discussion of this subject might be avoided, provided the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury would take into his consideration the desirability of referring the whole question to the investigation of a Committee. He desired to keep strictly to the question before the House, and he said distinctly that the reports of Mr. Hansard were not accurate, and they were not worth the sum it was proposed to pay for them. The Secretary to the Treasury had just told them that it was proposed to give this extra sum of £3,000 for a reporter of Mr. Hansard's in the House. Now, he could say, from his own knowledge, that it was beyond the physical powers of either a reporter, or two or three reporters, to accurately report all the proceedings of the House. A large staff of reporters was required to do that. Therefore, if the hon. Baronet was correct in saying that the Vote was for only a reporter, it was a piece of extravagance, because it was impossible for a reporter to do the work. As a matter of fact, the way the work was done was this—the reports of newspapers were reprinted a week or 10 days subsequently to the delivery of the speeches, and the speeches, short or long as they might be, were sent by Mr. Hansard to the Gentlemen who had delivered them for correction. If an hon. Member thought fit to elaborate his speech of three lines to three columns he could do so, and send that back to Mr. Hansard, and it would appear in the reports as if it was the speech which had been delivered in the House. If the hon. Member did not think proper to do this, his speech would appear in Hansard's reports in the mutilated form in which it might have been published in some paper. Every hon. Member knew that, in making this statement, he was speaking the truth; and, therefore, without at all discussing the general question, he said the reports of Mr. Hansard were comparatively worthless, owing to the way the work was performed. In the first place, the reports were not sent in proper time to Members for correction, and, in the second place, they were not taken by reporters who were specially engaged by Mr. Hansard for the purpose. The reports in Hansard were simply reports taken from the newspapers, and Mr. Hansard must depend upon the accuracy of the newspapers for what he published.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, he had no alternative but to move the rejection of the item proposed to be voted to Mr. Hansard, and he did so on the ground that if the Press in general was excluded from this House a semi-official report of the debates would be highly injurious, because there would be no control over its accuracy; and when one portion of the Press was excluded, as was now the case, to that extent the reports must also be untrustworthy as a record of what they required. He had desired to point out that the exclusion of the Irish Press was a reason for saying that there was a want of public control over Hansard's Debates; but as the Chairman had ruled that he could not bring this matter forward, he would refrain from doing so, though he confessed he could not see the ground for the ruling of the hon. Gentleman. No record of the proceedings of this House could satisfy the public which might not be fairly compared with the reports of the public Press, and at present a most important portion of that Press was excluded from the House. He begged to move the omission of the item for £3,000.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Item of £3,000 for the Special Grant for Hansard's Debates, be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)

MR. FORSYTH

said, when he first saw this large item of £3,000, he was rather startled by it; but he had ascertained the facts to be these—Mr. Hansard had been put to considerable expense in order to try this experiment, and in order to carry out the wishes of the House. In order that the proceedings in Committee and after midnight should be reported at greater length, Mr. Hansard engaged the reporters on the newspapers, and paid them extra for the services they performed for him. The consequence was that, under this system, they would have, in the course of this year, much fuller and more satisfactory reports of their debates than they had hitherto had. It was not as if they were going to vote this sum for no additional work. Mr. Hansard was endeavouring to carry out the wishes of the House, and, in doing this, he had to incur considerable expense; and, therefore, under these circumstances, he did not think £3,000 was an unfair sum to give him.

MR. GRAY

said, he was loth to interfere again in the discussion of this question, but he desired to answer some remarks which had been made. [While the hon. Member was speaking there was an interruption.]

MR. SULLIVAN rose to Order. He was not an old Member of the House, but he did think it had traditions of which it was proud with regard to the conduct of its Members. He had been long enough in the House, he was sorry to say, to have witnessed a sad decadence in this respect, and he had seen imported into their debates mimicry and the cries of animals. He had heard at that moment one of those cries, and he called attention to it, because it was the second time he had heard such an interruption that night. It had evidently been done with a view to disparage his hon. Friend while he was addressing the Committee; and, when they found that a Prime Minister could be hooted at in the Lobby, when cock-crowing could be indulged in from behind the Speaker's Chair, and when the mewings of cats could resound through the House, he thought the time had arrived when some hon. Member should rise and invoke the past memories of the House.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. and learned Member for Louth has called the attention of the Committee to a circumstance which appears to me to be one very much to be regretted. When the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Gray) was first addressing the Committee, I heard some such disturbance as that to which reference has been made, and I at once endeavoured to put a stop to it. On the second occasion, the sound had not distinctly reached me; and I feel certain any hon. Member, who has so far forgotten the respect due to the Committee as to indulge in such interruptions, will not repeat the conduct after the public notice which has now been taken of the matter.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

said, after the statement just made by the Chairman, it would be only a graceful act for the hon. Member who was in error to rise in his place and apologize for the insult he had offered to the dignity of the Committee. An hon. Member near him (Mr. R. Power)—in fact, two hon. Members—were in a position to state who the hon. Member was, and if the hon. Member himself did not come forward and apologize for what he had done, he hoped his name would be made known. Some time ago, when an hon. Member misconducted himself in the Lobby, the matter was brought before the House, and the hon. Member had to apologize; and in this case he did not think the hon. Member complained of ought to be allowed to remain silent under the condemnation which he had received from the Chair. If he was worthy of his position as a Gentleman in that House, he would at once get up and apologize; if not, he ought to be named.

THE CHAIRMAN

I will point out to the Committee that, when the ruling of the Chair has been invited on a particular subject and it has been given, it is not customary to pursue the discussion when that ruling is not disputed.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

said, what he desired to do was to call attention to a new feature in this case. Two hon. Gentlemen near him were in a position to name the offender, and the question was whether he was to be dragged to justice, or would voluntarily come forward and pay the only retribution in his power to the offended dignity of the Committee by making an apology?

MR. MACDONALD

said, he was in a position to point out the hon. Member who had interrupted, and if he did not rise in his place and apologize, he should adopt the suggestion which had been made and name him, because this was not the first time things of this kind had occurred in the same quarter.

MR. DODSON

said, it appeared to him very undesirable that this matter should be pursued further, especially after the ruling which had been given by the Chair. He would, however, submit to the Committee, as a point of Order, if it had been intended to proceed against any hon. Member who it was alleged had been guilty of indulging in un-Parliamentary sounds, attention should have been directed to the conduct the moment it took place. In this case, several hon. Members had addressed the Committee since the offence was first committed, and now attention had been drawn to the matter, he thought it was not desirable they should pursue the subject further.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

said, although he was in a position to name the hon. Member who had offended, yet he was only one among many, and therefore it might be hard to particularize him; besides which, he hoped that the lesson which the hon. Member and others had received that evening, would prevent a repetition of their conduct.

MAJOR NOLAN

said, he was rather surprised the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chester (Mr. Dodson) should have suggested that this subject should be allowed to drop; because he was the very right hon. Member who, when there was cock-crowing from behind the Chair, drew the Speaker's attention to it.

MR. DODSON

said, the hon. and gallant Member for Galway was perfectly right. He (Mr. Dodson) did rise, and call the attention of the Speaker to the un-Parliamentary sounds which were uttered on the occasion referred to; but he rose the instant they were uttered, and, having drawn forth the Speaker's ruling on the subject, he rested satisfied, and he did not endeavour afterwards to call attention to any particular Member who had been guilty of the conduct.

MR. GRAY

said, he did not pay any attention to the interruptions, nor did he intend to draw the Chairman's notice to them. Personally, he attached very little importance to what had taken place. He regarded it as an evidence of the Darwinian theory of the development of species. He was told the hon. Member could imitate the sounds of other animals in a much more natural manner. Why the few observations he was about to address to the Committee should have aroused the animosity of the hon. Member, he was as a loss to conceive. What he wanted to say was, that he was loth to vote on this question without some further explanation. Was Mr. Hansard only to have one reporter in the Gallery, or were a number of the representatives of the Press to be subsidized by Mr. Hansard, simply because they had seats in the Gallery? The Committee was entitled to explanation on this point.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

stated, that this sum of £3,000 had been placed in the Estimates in order to attempt to fulfil the implied wish of the House as expressed last year, which was that they should have fuller reports of their proceedings for the purpose of reference. Mr. Hansard was by no means limited to one reporter. He engaged to do the work for the sum put in the Estimates, and he could employ one or more reporters as he desired; and he thought anyone who had seen the reports which had lately been published would testify, as he could, to the fact that they were far more ample than they were prior to this arrangement being entered into, Hon. Members had an opportunity, if they cared to avail themselves of it, of correcting their remarks, and they could make any additions which they thought necessary, so that the report should be perfectly intelligible. All that was aimed at was a record of the proceedings of the House more ample in the future than it had been in the past, especially as regarded proceedings in Committee.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

Perhaps some hon. Gentlemen may not be aware of what passed earlier in the year. My hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury has correctly described what has been done as an experimental arrangement with Mr. Hansard, with a view to obtain a more perfect record of the proceedings of the House in the volumes which are delivered to us; but it may be a question whether that will altogether meet the wishes of the House with regard to improvements in our reports. Earlier in the year, I stated that it was my intention to move for the appointment of a Select Commit- tee to inquire into the whole question. I have not hitherto done so, partly because a good many of the Members who, it might be thought desirable, should serve on that Committee, are already engaged on the Committee which has been sitting on the Business of the House. In a few days, however, I will give Notice for a Committee on this question; and when that is appointed, there can be an investigation of the experimental arrangement which has been made with Mr. Hansard, and also a general inquiry into any other alterations which may be deemed expedient in the system of reporting our debates. I take it for granted that we shall now proceed to vote Mr. Hansard this sum for the present Session, because the new arrangements he has made have involved some expense which he ought to be paid, although it does not bind the House to any permanent arrangement.

MR. GRAY

said, he was perfectly satisfied with the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, and he should not press the matter further.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

hoped that part of the duty of the Committee would be to ascertain whether it would not be possible to have the debates reported by the following day. He had been making inquiries on the subject, and found that in Paris, the United States of America, and Victoria, the debates were published the next day; and he believed a very small addition to the sum they were now asked for would secure their being able to have the reports by 4 o'clock the next day. A verbatim report of the previous day's proceedings would be of the greatest use, especially when important debates were proceeding, and it was desirable to know what had been stated previously. He hoped the Committee about to be appointed would take that matter into their consideration, because he was satisfied it could be carried out for a very small additional expense.

MR. RYLANDS

considered the Government had taken a very wise course in proposing this experimental proceeding; and he thought, by this subsidy, they would find the reports of their debates very much improved, and that they would give greater satisfaction to the Members than they had hitherto done. No doubt, the Committee which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to nominate would investigate the whole matter, and in the meantime he was glad the Government had placed this item in the Estimates.

MR. MELDON

said, there was one point which he should like to have cleared up. The number of subscribers to these debates had hitherto not been very large; and, as under this new arrangement the size of the volumes would be increased, he wished to know whether the price would also be increased? If the annual subscription remained the same as it was at present, he thought the experiment might prove a successful one; though, if the price was to be increased, he did not think such would be the case.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, it was distinctly understood that the price of the set for the Session should not be increased, although the reports would be considerably longer than under the present arrangement.

SIR ANDREW LUSK

said, he had already stated that he was in favour of the Vote, and all he had now risen for was to draw attention to a remark of the Chancellor of the Exchequer which he thought ought not to pass without notice. The right hon. Gentleman was going to appoint a Committee to inquire into the whole of this matter, and, though there were 650 Members of the House, he seemed to think there were only some 25 or 30 who were fit to serve on such a Committee. He protested against this idea, because there were plenty of Members, besides those who were on the Committee on the Business of the House, who were qualified to sit on this new Committee.

MR. D. DAVIES

trusted the Committee would give instructions to Mr. Hansard to cut the speeches short. He should, for instance, be very sorry if Mr. Hansard was to be compelled to report the remarks which had been made during the last half-hour. To do so, would be to make the reports so voluminous that they would not be able to make anything out of them. He should be willing to pay Mr. Hansard for cutting down the speeches, and giving those simply which were worth preserving, and nothing more.

MR. O'DONNELL

presumed, from the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the general question of reporting would come before the Com- mittee, and, as he approved of Hansard's reports as far as they went, he would, with the permission of the Committee, withdraw his proposal to omit the sum of £3,000.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

MR. BIGGAR

desired to have some explanation from the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury in reference to a sum of £300, which was given to the Controller, as stated in the Estimate, "in lieu of residence surrendered." It would be in the recollection of most hon. Members that last year there was some discussion on the question of the appointment of the Controller of this Department; and what he should like to know was, whether this gentleman had ever really occupied this residence, or was the sum of £300 given to him in lieu of something which he never possessed? He observed that the salary of the Controller was £1,000 a-year.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

explained that the office of Controller carried with it a house; but, as it was found necessary for office purposes to make use of that part of the building which had been appropriated to a residence, the sum of £300 was added to the salary of this gentleman as house rent in lieu of the house which otherwise he would have occupied as the officer in charge of the establishment.

MR. BIGGAR

expressed himself dissatisfied with the explanation of the hon. Baronet, which, in fact, did not differ from the foot-note to the Estimate. The official house formerly assigned to the Controller was at present occupied as offices, and Mr. Pigott, a young gentleman, was put into this position over the heads of the other persons in the Department in order that he might get an allowance of £300 a-year for a residence which he had never occupied, and which, probably, would have been thoroughly unsuitable for him had he done so. It seemed to him that a house for the Controller could be got for a very much less sum than £300 a-year in some other part of London; and, looking at all the circumstances, he thought it was a continuation of the job of last year. Therefore, he begged to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £300.

Motion made, and Question, That a sum, not exceeding £376,245, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1879, for Stationery, Printing, Binding, and Printed Books for the several Departments of Government in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and some Dependencies, and for Stationery, Binding, Printing, and Paper for the two Houses of Parliament, including the Salaries and Expenses of the Stationery Office,"—(Mr. Biggar,) —put, and negatived.

Original Question again proposed.

Whereupon Motion made, and Question put, That a sum, not exceeding £376,445, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1879, for Stationery, Printing, Binding, and Printed Books for the several Departments of Government in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and some Dependencies, and for Stationery, Binding, Printing, and Paper for the two Houses of Parliament, including the Salaries and Expenses of the Stationery Office."—(Mr. Biggar.)

The Committee divided:—Ayes 26; Noes 278: Majority 252.—(Div. List, No. 119.)

Original Question again proposed.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, he would direct attention particularly to the very remarkable item of £800, which was set down as the salary of the editor of The London Gazette. Any person who was acquainted with the Press must be aware that £800 a-year was a very fair remuneration for high-class journalistic work, and the editor of The London Gazette did not do any journalistic work of any high description whatever. Any hon. Member who glanced at that paper would at once see that it was not distinguished in any respect for its composition, the refinement of its style, or its generally high-class tone. It was a pure combination of matter with scissors and paste, and clerks and compositors were the only persons required to bring it out. The post of editor—especially an editor with £800 a-year—was a pure superfluity. It might, perhaps, be called more rightly something worse than a superfluity. To give a gentleman, who did no work for the money, £800 a-year, was very much like establishing a good old national job. The editor of The London Gazette was not a real editor. The salary of £800 a-year was entirely out of proportion to the services he performed. He had no doubt whatever that the gentleman, who was put down as clerk at £400 a-year, really did all the so-called editorial work; and there was, therefore, no reason for maintaining this editorial salary in the Estimates. If he were in Order, he would propose the omission of that item.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the hon. Member could not propose to omit the item, but he could move to reduce the entire Vote.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

remarked, that while the hon. Member for Dungarvan was considering that point, he rose in the interest of Public Business to call attention to other matters. They had had occasion to discuss at great length that evening the expenses connected with the Patent Office. He found in that Vote for the Patent Office, including registry of designs and trademarks, a sum of £17,429. He wished to say that, after all that had been said upon the important privileges of the Patent Office that night, he did not, of course, regard this £17,000, in addition to the other sum of £56,000, as at all a very extravagant amount; but the objection he had to this item was that it was not particularized. He was asked to assent to a Vote of £18,000 for the Patent Office, and it was under the head of Stationery and Printing. Perhaps the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury could give the Committee some idea of how their relations with the Patent Office could justify so large an expenditure. Then, the Committee would find £2,505 charged for stationery for the Convict Department, and £1,508 for The Police Gazette. These seemed to be large items, and he desired some explanation regarding them?

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

did not think the charge for stationery for the Convict Department a large sum, considering the number and size of the establishments, and the amount of correspondence which took place. As to the £17,500 for stationery for the Patent Office, that was included in the Vote for the Stationery Offices, and taken under that Vote.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

was desirous that the same sum should not be voted twice for the same purpose. Of course, if there was but one Vote to be taken, that was all right; but, at the same time, he considered the Estimates misleading.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, the whole subject of the way in which these accounts were presented to Parliament was under the consideration of a Committee of the Treasury; but, at the same time, in answer to the hon. Member, he might say it had been considered just as well to give the House the fullest possible information, showing what the cost of each particular Department was.

MR. PARNELL

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, whether the Committee had as yet voted the sum of £3,450, for allowances to Irish and Scotch Law Officers? He did not understand that it had.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

did not consider that the editor of The London Gazette had at all too large a salary. In the first place, he was responsible for the collection of the money for advertisements in The Gazette. Besides which, as every advertisement in the paper was to a certain extent a legal document, each required attention as to accuracy, and the editor was responsible for their being accurate. Therefore, what with being responsible for the collection of the income and the correctness of the advertisements, he thought the salary of £800 a-year was not too much to pay.

MR. GRAY

said, there was a small item of £100 charged for clerical assistance in editing The Dublin Gazette; but, as far as the Estimates were concerned, The Edinburgh Gazette must do its own editing, for there was no charge for that work. The Edinburgh Gazette and the The Dublin Gazette required as much care and responsibility in their editing as The London Gazette; and yet, while nothing was voted for the Scotch Gazette, and £100 a-year for the Irish, there were charges of £2,000 for editing the London Gazette. Doubtless the matter was capable of explanation, but he was curious to hear the cause of the difference in the three cases.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

said, the charge for The Edinburgh Gazette was included in the Scotch, and not in the English Vote. While the income of The Edinburgh Gazette was £3,449, and of The Dublin Gazette £1,120, that of The London Gazette was £58,000.

MR. GRAY

impressed upon the ton. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury, the advisability of having the accounts for this kind of work put together, so that a comparison might be easily instituted.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, the fact that a large sum was realized by the insertion of advertisements in The London Gazette was no reason why an officer who was engaged upon that journal should be over-paid. The editor of The London Gazette got £800 a-year, and the question was, what he did for that money? He believed the clerks did the work, and certainly they were amply paid to look after the printing of a paper and the correct insertion of advertisements. They had been told that the scale of charges for advertisements in The London Gazette was altogether too high. Therefore, if they were going to be liberal with the money The Gazette produced, instead of paying £800 a-year to an officer who did nothing, they should, to an extent corresponding with that sum, reduce the charges for advertisements. Then they would be getting rid of the balance of profit in a manner much more agreeable to the general public. The editor of The London Gazette could not be said to do editorial work. There were clerical duties to be performed, and clerks carried them out, and it was quite out of the question to give £800 a-year to a gentleman who did a very inferior kind of sub-editorial duty. He considered that £250 a-year would be sufficient for such services; but, as it was, he would move to reduce the Vote by £400, leaving this nominal editor with a salary of £400.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £376,145, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1879, for Stationery, Printing, Binding, and Printed Books for the several Departments of Government in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and some Dependencies, and for Stationery, Binding, Printing, and Paper for the two Houses of Parliament, including the Salaries and Expenses of the Stationery Office."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)

SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN

said, the question of salary for the editor of The London Gazette was not a new one. Ten or 15 years since there was a discussion raised on the point, and Lord Palmer- ston, then the Prime Minister, said there was no Profession in the country for the benefit of which patronage was so little exercised as the Press. His Lordship pointed out that there was an advantage in having such an office as editor of The London Gazette, where not much work had to be done, to which a Pressman might be appointed. Such an exercise of patronage was but a graceful compliment to the Press of this country; and he (Sir Patrick O'Brien) thought Members of the House of Commons the last persons who ought to oppose the payment of £800 a-year to the editor of The London Gazette.

MR. SULLIVAN

was sure the Press of this country did not need an office of this kind to be held out to it by the Government as a morsel of patronage. The Press of this country would not, for the sake of one situation or hundreds, barter its proud boast of being, perhaps, the only Press in Christendom, which was not subject in any way to the blandishments of those who were in Office.

MR. CHARLES LEWIS

agreed with the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Patrick O'Brien) as to the reasons given by Lord Palmerston for appointing the former editor of The Observer newspaper to be editor of The London Gazette. It had been the practice formerly to give the situation to a lawyer; and, although he was inclined to think the expenses of bringing out The Gazette were too high, he would remind the Committee that there was hardly an advertisement in The Gazette which was not inserted there by the authority of some Act of Parliament, which rendered it very desirable that a legal gentleman should have the supervision of the establishment, so as to see that every legal condition was properly performed. He did not say that, when it was remembered that £400 a-year was paid to the chief clerk and £800 to the editor, there was not some room for economy; but he considered the present was not the time to carry out such an alteration. To call the gentleman who had £800 a-year an editor was a misnomer; but he had very responsible duties to perform in connection with the publication of the paper, and he was answerable for everything going on properly.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, it was quite true that considerable responsibilities attached to the staff of The London Gazette; but, at the same time, he could assure the Committee that the question of economy in the carrying out of the duties of the office had not been lost sight of, and it would be adopted as opportunity offered.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

said, it was undoubtedly true that the editor of The London Gazette was not actually an editor in the sense of writing articles for his paper; but, as had been so well pointed out by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis), he was responsible for the strict accuracy of what appeared in The Gazette, and that was a responsibility which did not attach to an editor of any of the leading newspapers in London. He did not think his hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) ought to divide the House on this item of the editor's salary, especially, as if he looked over the other Votes, he would find many instances in regard to which he could display his economical desires.

MR. PARNELL

, while not desiring a division on the item, said, the only way to draw attention to it was to move to reduce the Vote, and no doubt the hon. Member for Dungarvan had secured his ends by the course he had pursued. He was glad to hear the Secretary to the Treasury say it was intended to economize in this Department when occasion arose; and, under these circumstances, he hoped the hon. Member for Dungarvan would not divide the Committee.

MR. O'DONNELL

intimated that he did not wish to divide the House.

Question put, and negatived.

Original Question again proposed.

MR. O'DONNELL

, referring to the item for Printing, said, the printers of Dublin had recently made an effort to increase their rate of wages; and, while successful to some extent, it had not altogether succeeded. Among the employers who had most rigidly opposed the increase in the wages was the Government Printing Department. They had refused to increase the rate, and the men refused to work. The Government Department then endeavoured to import men from England and Scotland; but, true to the principles of the Printer's Union, the men would not go to Dublin. It was now alleged that some system of "jobbing" had been adopted, by which the Government printing was done outside Dublin—he believed outside Ireland—by which means the masters gave no extra money to their old hands, and satisfied the scruples of English and Scotch printers not to work in Dublin. He hoped on the Report the hon. Baronet would be able to give information on the matter. Still, he thought all would admit that the Government Printing Department in Dublin ought not to push economy to the extent of stinginess, especially when that economy affected, not persons receiving comfortable incomes, but poor, working operatives. He also wished to call attention to page 132 of the Estimates, whereon was an item of £289 in respect of the Queen's University. The Irish Members objected to the whole principle upon which grants were made to the Queen's University; and, as there would not be much chance of fairly discussing the matter that night, he hoped the Government would not object to the Motion which he would now make for reporting Progress.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, that the item of £289 was put down on account of the stationery to be supplied to the Queen's University in the ensuing year. The precise sum that appeared in the Statement in the Estimates was chosen, because it was the grant made in the Vote for 1876–7. He did not think it was convenient to discuss the question as to the Queen's University on that Vote. A better opportunity of discussing it would be found when the Vote for that Institution came on.

MR. SULLIVAN

said, that Irish Catholic Members had pledged themselves not to allow a penny to be voted for the Queen's University on any pretence whatever. They would take every legitimate means of recording their protest against the system of forcing money on Ireland to support an Institution which she detested.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

observed, that they were not then discussing the Vote for the Queen's University, but only the expenses of the Stationery Department. The amount for the stationery of the Queen's University was only placed in the explanatory Table to this Estimate because it was the sum spent in the year 1876–7.

MR. GRAY

observed, that if the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would assure the Committee that the Vote they were now asked to pass did not include anything for stationery to the Queen's University, the Irish Members would not pursue the question further. As he understood the matter, if the Vote were passed, the stationery would be supplied to the Queen's University.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

suggested that the question of supporting the Queen's University might be tested by fixing upon some individual item and dividing the House upon it. That could be done on the present occasion, and it was immaterial whether the Vote was retrospective or prospective. There was another aspect to the question. It was then 10 minutes after the respectable hour for reporting Progress in Supply, and he hoped the hon. Member would persevere in his Motion.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

pointed out to the Committee that where an Estimate was made for stationery expenses, it was impossible to say absolutely what particular amount would be required. The amount estimated for that year was the amount supposed to be spent on stationery last year, and when they came to the Vote for the Queen's Colleges, then would be the time to strike out the allowance for stationery. If the Vote were refused, there would be so much extra to be paid in the next year. The amount supposed to be necessary for the supply of stationery to the Queen's University was now included in the Estimate, and if not expended for the purposes of the Queen's Colleges, the money would remain to the credit of the Exchequer.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

hoped that the Committee would reduce the Vote for Stationery by the sum which it was estimated would be necessary to supply the Queen's Colleges.

MR. LYON PLAYFAIR

observed, that the only chance of passing the Vote was by consenting to divide at once upon a proposal for its reduction by the sum of £289. The Queen's University must be supplied with a considerable amount of stationery for examina- tion papers and with printing; therefore, practically, this included a Vote for the Queen's University. The Irish Members had a right to object to it, and, although he would not vote with them, it would facilitate Business if, instead of a protracted discussion, a division were at once taken.

MR. PARNELL

said, that as he understood the proposition that had been made, it was that they should then reduce the stationery voted by the sum of £289, the amount estimated to be necessary for the supply of the Queen's Colleges in Ireland. Then they could discuss the principle of supporting the Queen's University on the Motion for voting its Supplies, and they could, at the same time, take the Vote for Stationery to be supplied to it. That was a very simple plan, and, if in accordance with the Rules of the House, he should hope the Government would assent to it.

MR. MACARTNEY

protested against its being said that Irish Members were unanimously opposed to the grant for the Queen's Colleges in Ireland. He believed that there would be a considerable contingent of Irish Members sitting on that side of the House who would vote for the grant.

MAJOR NOLAN

observed, that the opponents of the grant amongst the Irish Members were about three to one compared with those who supported it. Twice before the Government had tried to coax them to vote a supply for the Queen's University, but they had refused to do so, and their refusal had had a very excellent effect upon Ireland. A great many people liked their dividing on the subject, and, as they found their constituencies were supporting them, they would have a good many divisions on the question.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the Government could not consent to withdraw the sum proposed in the Vote for Stationery to be supplied to the Queen's University. If hon. Members objected to the Vote, they would have an opportunity of making their protest. It was impossible to say exactly what proportion of the money voted would be spent on the Queen's University. But, as in former Estimates, the amount spent had been £289—that might fairly be considered as about the amount required in the next year. If the Government did not press the Vote, it would look like flinching. But it was open to those who opposed the expenditure of public moneys for the Queen's University to move to reduce the Stationery Vote by the sum estimated.

MR. PARNELL

appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to postpone the Vote for the Queen's Colleges until such time as the principle of the grant could be fairly and reasonably discussed. The right hon. Gentleman had promised Irish Members a fair opportunity for discussing the matter, and he now called upon him to fulfil that promise.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, that the question now before the Committee was, whether a particular sum of money should be voted for the Stationery Department. It was for the Committee subsequently to decide whether the Queen's Colleges should or should not continue. If the Vote for the University were to be struck out, no stationery could be supplied to it, and the money voted would remain in the Stationery Office as a surplus due to the Exchequer. It did not by any means follow that because the Committee voted that particular sum of £289, that the money would go to the Queen's Colleges.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

said, the proposal was to reduce the Vote by £289, the Estimate for Stationery for the Queen's University, otherwise it would be supposed that they had consented to an expenditure of public money for that Institution.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he never had any very high idea of the ability of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. ["Oh!"] If hon. Members objected to the phrase he had used, he would at once withdraw it and apologize to the Committee; but he must be permitted to say that he thought the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman a very unreasonable one. What he (Mr. Biggar) wished to do was to move to report Progress, in order to discuss the question which had been raised; and he saw no means of doing it in any other way, for it seemed to him to be little short of absurd to hope for a satisfactory discussion of the question on a Motion to reduce the Vote at that hour of the morning. Let Progress be reported, and Supply put down as the first Order of the Day on the next Government night, and then there could be no difficulty in the matter. The Votes occupied five pages of the Paper, and required a considerable amount of discussion. He did not think, therefore, that—

THE CHAIRMAN

pointed out that any discussion of the Estimates generally on the particular Motion before the Committee would be out of Order.

MR. GRAY

did not think it could be pretended that a reduction of this Vote by a sum of £300 could interfere with the efficiency of the Stationery Department, and they only wished for such reduction in order not in any way to be committed to even a nominal acquiescence in the Vote for the Queen's Colleges. If the Queen's University Vote was passed subsequently, the Government would still have sufficient money—after having assented to the reduction now proposed—to supply the Colleges with all the stationery they might require.

MR. CHARLES LEWIS

said, that as far as he knew, a large majority of the House were in favour of the continuance of the Queen's Colleges, and he thought it would, therefore, be disastrous to make a concession of the kind involved in the proposed reduction of the Vote. If the Government gave up the Vote, or assented to its reduction, it would go forth to the whole United Kingdom that they were assenting to the views of those who wished to see the whole of the Queen's Colleges in Ireland and the Queen's University abolished.

MR. LYON PLAYFAIR

said, he had not proposed or suggested that the sum of £289 should be withdrawn by the Government, but only that the sense of the House should be immediately taken on that item. All he had ever intended to suggest was, that the Irish Members ought not to be prevented in any way from discussing this particular sum for the Queen's Colleges. He, for one, could not support an attempt to discuss the large question of the Queen's Colleges on a Vote of money for the purchase of stationery. There would be other opportunities open to those who wished to state their objections to such institutions, and to get the opinion of the House concerning them.

MR. PARNELL

thought the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury was, unintentionally no doubt, mislead- ing the Committee; because there could be no doubt as to the fact that if the present Vote was passed, there would be no opportunity of dealing with the subject-matter of it when the Vote of money for the Queen's Colleges came to be considered in Committee. That Vote included no sum for stationery; and, therefore, if the amount now asked was voted, the Committee would be to that extent sanctioning the principle that Parliament ought to grant public money for the support of the Colleges. He, for one, was tired of voting against these Queen's Colleges after 1 o'clock in the morning, and asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to compel hon. Members to express their opinion on the general question by means of side issues, but to give facilities for a fair and full discussion.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he should fulfil the promise that had been given, to afford as full facilities as possible for the discussion of the Vote for the Queen's Colleges; but he must contend that the question did not arise upon the present Vote. If the Vote was agreed to, the amount of it would be at the disposal of the Stationery Department for the general purposes of the Office, and not for any particular branch of the State in which stationery was required. It ought, therefore, to be clear that the Vote for the Queen's Colleges could not possibly be prejudiced by passing the one now before the Committee; because, if the Committee, on a subsequent occasion, decided to negative the Vote for the Colleges, the heads of the Stationery Department would find it unnecessary to spend all the money that was voted to them—money that was voted in a lump sum, and not split up into particular items.

THE O'CONOR DON

appealed to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway not to divide the Committee on the proposal to report Progress, because an opportunity would be afforded later of discussing the whole question of the Queen's Colleges. There was no Member of the House who would oppose the granting of money for the Queen's Colleges more strongly than he would, and he would vote with them against the Estimate; but he deprecated continuing, or attempting to continue, a discussion on the Motion to report Pro- gress with reference to a point which the Chairman had ruled to be out of Order.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

said, it was perfectly true that the Vote before the Committee was not the Queen's Colleges Vote, but was one for the stationery; but it must be well known that in former years a part of a similar Vote had been devoted to the supplying of the Queen's Colleges with stationery; and, therefore, it was fair to assume that, in passing the Vote, the Committee was virtually, though not nominally, assenting to the making grants of public money for the maintenance of the Queen's Colleges in Ireland. He therefore thought there could be no objection to a proposal to decrease the Vote by £300, that being about the sum expended in the supply of stationery to the Queen's Colleges, as shown by the Return now before the Committee.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

said, as he understood the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Mr. Lyon Playfair), it was that the proposal to reduce the Vote should be withdrawn, and that the Committee should divide upon the whole Vote, whilst those who opposed the Queen's Colleges' grant stated their reasons for so objecting. That was a suggestion he could not adopt, because, if any hon. Members had a right to divide against the Vote, they had also a right to state their reasons for so doing. Although no actual sum was mentioned in the Estimate as being meant to be applied to the purchase of stationery for the Queen's Colleges, it was perfectly well known that a part of it would be so applied, and therefore there was a clear right to object to money being so expended. On former occasions Votes had been objected to, on the ground that portions of them might be expended in carrying out the provisions of Acts of Parliament to the principle of which hon. Members were opposed. Such objections had not been ruled out of Order, and he contended that the present Vote ran perfectly on all-fours with those to which he referred. For years the Representatives of nine-tenths of the Irish people had been trying to get even moderate justice done to them in reference to this question of University Education, and had failed. They now, therefore, found themselves driven into the painful—and some hon. Members might think unconstitutional—course, of having to oppose the principle to which they strongly objected, on the Vote for the expenses of the Stationery Department. Constant promises, constantly broken, to deal with the Irish Education Question, had driven the Irish Members into the adoption of a course which they would have gladly avoided, in order to induce the Government to fulfil their often-repeated promises.

MAJOR NOLAN

contended, that by assenting to this Vote, the Irish Members would be giving up the position to which they had committed themselves; and they would be told this very distinctly by their constituents if, after consenting to this Vote, a General Election, took place before the Chancellor of the Exchequer had fulfilled his promise to give an opportunity for discussing the question of the Queen's Colleges in Ireland.

Mr. O'CONNOR POWER

said, everything seemed to turn upon the question of whether the present was the proper occasion for considering the often-repeated promise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give an opportunity for discussing the question of the grants made to the Queen's Colleges. In the course of the debate, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had admitted that the Committee could not agree to this Vote without, to an extent, assenting to the principle of making grants of Imperial funds towards the maintenance of the Queen's Colleges in Ireland.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

I beg the hon. Member's pardon. What I stated was exactly the contrary of what he has ascribed to me.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

said, he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Committee could not allow this Vote to be agreed to unopposed without compromising the opposition to the Queen's Colleges.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he had, in his former speech, admitted the perfect liberty of any hon. Members to move the reduction or rejection of the Vote; but he added that if the Vote was adopted in its entirety, it would not compromise the question of the Queen's Colleges; because the Committee could afterwards discuss the ques- tion of the Institutions to which the Department should supply the stationery which the Vote would enable them to purchase.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

said, this was an argument which had been urged again and again; but he did not think it could be maintained that the position of those who opposed the making of grants to the Queen's Colleges would not be compromised if they agreed to a Vote of money, a part of which was to be expended in the supply of stationery to those Colleges. If they voted against the question at such an hour as had been reached, they would certainly be whipped; and he, therefore, thought that, under all the circumstances, it would be much fairer for the Government to report Progress.

MR. SULLIVAN

said, the grievance complained of by the Irish Members was not a sentimental one, and could not, therefore, be disposed of by each opponent making one speech, and then quietly accepting a Vote of the Committee of the House. The question was one which must be, and would be, fought inch by inch and penny by penny if necessary. They were determined to show to England and the world that it was the votes of English Members that was thrusting upon Parliament money for a purpose which was hateful to the majority of the Irish people, and they could only do this by dividing upon every Vote that could possibly affect the question, until the Government saw fit to give them an opportunity of discussing the whole matter at a period of the House's Sitting when their speeches could be reported through the newspapers which got into the hands of the people generally.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 34; Noes 200: Majority 166.—(Div. List, No. 120.)

Original Question again proposed.

MR. PARNELL

said, he wished to make one more appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon this subject, in order, if possible, to get the full opportunity which had been promised of discussing this question. To vote this sum for stationery, a part of which was to be supplied to the Queen's Colleges, was, in his view, just as much a Vote on account of the College as would be a Vote for the salaries of the Professors or Examiners; and, therefore, he thought the Committee was justified in opposing it. There was no ground for the Government opposing the Irish Members on this point; and he hoped they would be saved the trouble of walking through the Division Lobbies all night, losing their tempers with each other, and taking a course which was scarcely consistent with the character and dignity of the House. He therefore moved that the Chairman do now leave the Chair.

MR. BIGGAR,

in seconding the Motion, said, he thought the Government were taking a very unreasonable course in reference to this matter, by insisting at so late an hour upon proceeding with a Vote upon which there was much to be said on both sides of the House.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Parnell.)

MAJOR NOLAN

said, the last division had shown the opinion of the Irish Members, a very considerable majority of whom had voted in favour of the proposal to report Progress. He, therefore, hoped the matter of the stationery for the Colleges would be allowed to stand over until the general question of making grants of any kind to these Institutions had been discussed and decided.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

observed, that he did not wish to keep hon. Members there all night, and if they were serious in wishing that Progress should be reported, he would not resist it. He, however, wished to point out that, whether they struck out £300, or any other sum from the Vote in respect of the Queen's Colleges, the opponents of the grant would not be one hair's breadth nearer gaining their point. For, if they were to reduce this grant by £300 and do nothing else, the Queen's Colleges would have the grant made to them from the special Vote. Therefore, whether the sum was larger or smaller in the present Estimate, did not make one iota of difference. Perhaps, between that night and Thursday, hon. Gentlemen would be able to consider the matter.

MR. PARNELL

asked for leave to withdraw his Amendment. He must, however, state that it seemed to him that if the Vote were reduced by the sum of £289, the Department would not have sufficient money to meet the charges for stationery to Queen's University, which would be left without any.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Resolutions to be repeated To-morrow;

Committee also report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday.