CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS.

HC Deb 06 March 1879 vol 244 cc321-62

(8.) £3,500, Treasury.

MR. BRISTOWE

observed, that he could not understand the item. He should have thought that the Government would have known perfectly well the measures it intended to introduce, and would be able to estimate the cost of drafting such Bills. He admitted that Bills ought to be drafted in a proper manner; but he could not understand how it was the Government, knowing what Bills it intended to bring forward, should make an original Estimate of £1,700, and a Supplementary Estimate of £3,500, as the cost of drafting such Bills. Why should a Supplementary Estimate of double the original Estimate be necessary? It was a most extraordinary state of things; and though it might possibly be accounted for, it seemed to him that the Estimates must be framed in a somewhat careless manner. He believed that there were few things which required more carefully examining than the Civil Service Estimates; and with regard to this particular Vote, he thought the Committee was entitled to have a full explanation.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

agreed that this Vote was a legitimate subject of criticism; but he was bound to point out to the Committee that the amount originally estimated was estimated under the idea of the cost that would be entailed by the employment of the ordinary staff in preparing Bills. But there had been many occasions on which, from peculiar circumstances, it was thought advisable, with the consent of the Treasury, to employ outside legal advice in the preparation of particular Bills. In the last Session of Parliament there were three or four Bills of a very important character, in the preparation of which it was considered necessary to employ outside legal advice. One of those Bills was the Criminal Code Bill, and in the preparation of that Sir James Fitzjames Stephen was employed, and his charges were included with the amount now under discussion. Mr. Reilly, another eminent draftsman, was also employed, and his bill was likewise included. Outside legal assistance was also obtained in the cases of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill, and the Bankruptcy Bill. The amount spent on legal advice, outside the ordinary staff, was last year in excess of the ordinary sum; and perhaps that accounted for the expenditure not being included in the general Estimate. He might further mention that every one of the Bills which had to be intrusted to outside legal advisers were only so intrusted after consultation with, and by consent of, the Treasury, and on the evidence of the Heads of Departments, showing the necessity of the Bills being so drafted.

MR. RYLANDS

said, that the explanation given of this Vote was, no doubt, very accurate; but it did not meet the remarks of his hon. and learned Friend. He must draw attention to the fact that the Estimates of the year provided for the payment of £2,500 a-year, increasing to £3,000, to a leading counsel, and £1,200 to an assistant counsel; there was also a staff of clerks, making the entire original Estimate for the ordinary counsel to the Treasury amount to £5,660. In addition to that, the Treasury laid upon the Table of the House an Estimate for fees to Parliamentary counsel outside those employed permanently, in respect of special and additional services. The reason alleged for this extraordinary charge was that they anticipated extra labour would be required in drafting Bills, and they estimated the amount at £1,700. The fact was that the £3,500 shown in the present Vote was in addi-to the £1,700, which itself was in addition to the ordinary expenditure on Parliamentary counsel. It was a most remarkable circumstance, that while the ordinary expenditure amounted to £5,600, the extraordinary expenditure incurred by the employment of learned gentlemen outside the Department came to no less a sum than £5,200, or nearly as much again as the original Estimate. He was entirely at a loss to explain this remarkable charge. When the matter was before the Committee last year, a noble Lord on the Ministerial side of the House thought the Supplementary Estimates then presented indefensible; but they were really not so utterly without justification as those which the Committee was now called upon to vote. He thought if greater pressure was put upon the permanent officials a great deal of good might be done. The fact was, these fees for drafting Bills were, no doubt, found to be a very nice thing to be given to learned gentlemen. There was a suggestion of jobbery in these matters which he did not believe existed however. Still, it was an expenditure of public money; and he could not understand, if his hon. Friend was anxious to put down unnecessary expenses of this kind, why he did not abolish these.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, he could assure the hon. Member that the Secretary to the Treasury was the last person not to agree with his remarks as to expenses of this kind, which were, practically, very often forced upon him. The point which the hon. Member had brought to the notice of the Committee was that already £1,700 was taken for the additional assistance which was found now every year to be required in the Parliamentary Draftsmen's Office. Whether it arose from the immense energy of Members, or their desire for legislation, the result was that more Bills were required to be brought in, and carefully drafted; and there was no doubt that, notwithstanding the services of the learned draftsman and his assistants, a very great deal of outside aid had to be asked. The explanation of the excessive amount this year would be found in the fact that they had had two exceptionally heavy Bills, one especially so—namely, the Criminal Code Bill, which required special treatment, and certainly had been dealt with in a manner which had given great satisfaction. When he stated that £1,575 of the amount was expended in this way, and £1,135 in another Bill, he thought it would show that, although they had estimated in the ordinary way what the expenditure in this Department would be, the Supplementary Vote was justified. It was very difficult to resist the employment of a person so eminently qualified as Sir James Stephen was to conduct the drafting of the Criminal Code Bill; and he thought the Treasury were justified in consenting that the Bill should be drawn by Sir James Stephen, instead of being introduced in the ordinary way through the official Department. The items were, therefore, practically forced upon them by the nature of the Bills introduced; and that amount, though excessive, could hardly be avoided.

MR. DILLWYN

observed, that the Government were aware of their intention to bring in these Bills; and therefore he saw no reason why the extra cost should be met by a Supplementary Estimate. The question was, why were they not brought in amongst the ordinary Estimates?

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, the Government had to decide the ordinary Estimates on Bills that were absolutely before Parliament. The Estimates were framed in December, and many of the Bills included in the Supplementary Estimates were not practically decided upon until after the ordinary Estimates were in preparation. If they knew exactly the Bills they were bringing in, or intending to bring in, the suggestion of the hon. Member could be adopted; but the Estimates were framed on the average cost in the previous year, and occasionally there were instances where a Bill was decided upon later in the year, which cost a much larger sum than was anticipated.

MR. DILLWYN

said, he could understand that being so in the case of a small discrepancy; but in this instance the Supplementary Vote nearly covered the original sum.

MR. GREGORY

said, the excess did not principally arise in the preparation of the Bill, for upon that something like an average Estimate could be formed, but was caused by the alterations which were afterwards found to be required in it, and which might be considerable. This was especially the case as regarded the Criminal Code Bill, which was one of a wholly exceptional character, and as to which it was almost impossible to enter into any calculation of the charges involved in the preparation of the measure. He thought the Committee should bear in mind that the Estimate was, practically, not only for the past, but for the present year, as the Bill was about to be re-introduced and, he hoped, passed in the present Session.

MAJOR NOLAN

thought the Committee, and particularly Irish Members, ought to express their displeasure at the inefficiency of the Drafting Department, by moving the rejection of the Vote. Irish Members had particular reason in the present Session to be annoyed at the inefficiency of that Department. It was largely due to the conduct of the Drafting Department that there was no Bill this year on the subject of University Education in Ireland. If the Department had done its duty, some sort of Bill, to give equal advantages in regard to University Education to the Catholics of Ireland, would have been brought in this year. He was aware that the Committee would think this statement on this point grossly improbable; and if it rested on his own unsupported assertion, he would not expect the Committee for one moment to believe him. But, unfortunately for them—the Irish Members—they had the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was largely owing to the Drafting Department that they had no Bill this year for a Catholic University. He (Major Nolan) thought that the Drafting Department, having behaved so badly, the case was one in which they should enter a protest by dividing against the Vote.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

pointed out to the hon. and gallant Member that whatever might be alleged against the Drafting Department during the present year, the Supplementary Estimate before the House was one for last year, when the Intermediate Education Act for Ireland was passed.

MR. PARNELL

said, he was afraid that the anticipation of the hon. Member (Mr. Gregory) that the Criminal Code Bill would be passed this Session, would not be realized; and, in this respect, he must refer to the habit of the Government of preparing a lot of Bills which they had no immediate intention of bringing in. It would be in the recollection of the Committee that when the present Government came into Office they announced that it was their intention to withdraw themselves from the exciting and sensational topics which had occupied the attention of the preceding Government, and confine themselves to domestic legislation. Well, they had not fulfilled that pledge in the slightest degree; but they had kept up an appearance of fulfilling it, and mainly by the introduction of Bills upon every conceivable topic of domestic legislation at the beginning of the Session, involving very considerable expense, and without the slightest intention of carrying these Bills through their various stages. He believed that the Criminal Code Amendment Bill, if they could get it, would be an exceedingly valuable Bill. It would be worth far more than the £325 paid to Sir James Stephen for drafting it, because he had no doubt his labours were worth the money. But, at the same time, as the Bill was drafted last year, why was it not passed last year? He did not see the slightest chance of its being passed this year; and, in all probability, this Parliament would not see it carried into law. There- fore, though the Bill might, to some extent, be valuable for public reference and discussion, the expenditure of this amount was practically a waste of money, as far as the country was concerned. He would now come to the question which had been raised by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Galway (Major Nolan). He had pointed out that they ought to show their feeling as to the conduct of the Drafting Department by taking a Division against this Vote. He (Mr. Parnell) should be very unwilling to take a Division against that portion of the Vote which referred to the fees of counsel for drafting the Criminal Code Amendment Bill; and he would, therefore, suggest to his hon. and gallant Friend that it would be better to wait until the Vote for the current year came on for discussion, when they could mark their sense of the conduct of the Drafting Department by taking a Division against it. It might seem invidious to attack Sir James Stephen's fees, on account of the conduct of the officials of that Department. Sir James Stephen was not an official of the Department. He was simply an outsider, who had been called on to perform a very important and heavy work.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, there would be no fresh drafting of the Bill, unless further changes were necessary.

Vote agreed to.

(9.) £2,300, Home Office.

MR. MACDONALD

said, he did not object to the amount of'£1,700 paid as fees to counsel engaged at inquests arising from explosions in mines, on behalf of Her Majesty. He should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman could show that the money was spent properly, and where; but he objected to the cases being grouped together, and the sum spent on each inquiry not stated. He knew very well that the attendance of counsel at these inquests had been productive of good; but he was also well aware that the common phrase used by the population in the immediate neighbourhood of mines was, that the person sent down was frequently not "worthy of their salt." He thought they ought to know what these inquiries were, and where they took place. Indeed, he felt that he should be obliged to move that the Vote be deferred, unless it was stated what were the inquiries which were instituted by Her Majesty, and who were the persons who conducted those inquiries. In some instances, the Representatives of Her Majesty were looked upon with perfect indifference; but if the names of the gentlemen to be sent down were made known, he had no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would frequently have, on certain names being given out, remonstrances against the appointment. If these inquiries were to be efficient, and to produce any result worth anything at all, the persons appointed to attend them ought to have the full confidence of the friends of those who were lost, and the sufferers generally. It appeared to him that the sum was enormous; and he should be glad to know whether the expenditure had occurred at or since the time when these Estimates were brought forward? He was not aware whether they also included a sum of £50 for an Inspector attending the Tynewydd Inquiry, and doing nothing more than his duty. He repeated, that he felt bound to move that the Vote be deferred without this information. [Mr. ASSHETON CROSS dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary shook his head; but he thought he had the liberty of protesting and dividing the Committee on the subject, which was all he could do. What he wanted to know was, where these inquires took place? He believed they had done much good, and he had nothing to say against them, or as to the inquiries into the competency of managers; but there was a sum of £1,700 spent in this way, and he thought they ought to know where it had been spent, and if the counsel engaged were, in public opinion, competent to do the work.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he was bound to say, in reply to the hon. Member, that there had never been a colliery explosion during the last few years but the hon. Member had impressed upon him the necessity of sending counsel down to the inquest, and he had stated that it had always been his practice to send the best man down. [Mr. MACDONALD: I beg—] He (Mr. Assheton Cross) would remind the hon. Member that he was in possession of the House, and that after he had concluded the hon. Member would have an opportunity to make an additional statement. All these Reports on the questions referred to by the hon. Member had necessarily been placed on the Table of the House; and that being so, the names of the persons who assisted at the inquiries would be found there. The Papers were at the service of the hon. Member in the Library. The hon. Member asked where these inquiries were held; but he had only to read the Blue Books, which had been laid on the Table of the House, to find them; and he did not know that the hon. Member required further information. The hon. Member had also given Notice of his intention to ask, from time to time, whether counsel would attend at such and such an inquiry, at this or that place? but he did not know that much would be gained by asking those Questions. The hon. Member knew that in the case of anything like a serious inquest, one of the most able counsel would go down as a matter of course; therefore, he could not see that any special good could arise from the Question.

MR. MACDONALD

said, the right hon. Gentleman had either misunderstood his remarks, or he had been misinformed since he entered the House. He stated most distinctly that he did not find fault with these inquiries—the very reverse was the case, for he believed them to be beneficial and of great service to the mining population, whether as regarded the attendance of counsel on behalf of Her Majesty at inquests, or the examination as to the competency of managers. What he did object to was the lumping together of this information by the Government without telling them where the inquiries were held—and he objected still. The right hon. Gentleman asked him to go to the Library, with only the expenditure of £1,700 in his hands, there to rake up the Blue Books for the last year, where he might find the information asked. He felt bound to tell the right hon. Gentleman that there was not within the walls of the Library a document that showed the amount of the expenses laid out on each individual inquiry; and, further, that notwithstanding the large amount of legal acumen that he possessed, he would not ferret out anything that would give the information that he said could be found there. He might find certain expenses charged for attending certain inquests, and a certain number of certificates of competence issued; but what was there in that which would lead him to see the expenditure at special inquiries—£500, for instance, at Abercarne, £400 at another, and so on? What he wanted was to know where the money had been spent.

MR. PARNELL

thought the request of the hon. Member a very reasonable one, although he did not suppose the right hon. Gentleman would be able to comply with it at the moment. He could not see, however, why the right hon. Gentleman should not give the required information hereafter. If they had no means of ascertaining how much was spent on each inquiry, they had no means of gauging whether the money had been properly applied; because it was perfectly manifest to all that some of these inquiries were very much more important than others, in proportion to their different character. He could quite understand that the hon. Member for Stafford might desire information as to some particular inquiry in which he was interested; and, therefore, he might very fairly take exception to this Vote, and move the reduction of this item. He certainly thought that the hon. Member was entitled to the information for which he asked; and he should suggest that instead of the Vote being postponed the information should be given hereafter. There had been an interesting discussion last year to which the hon. Member had made most able contributions, and at that time they were all very much impressed with the desire of the Home Secretary to deal with these terrible calamities in mines which, so far from decreasing, seemed to be getting worse and worse. He had seen that lime had been used for blasting purposes in America, where it was found that the explosion of this substance, when inclosed in a cartridge and rammed into a hole, and then put through a slackening process, was sufficient for blasting, and had precisely the same effect as gunpowder in breaking down the coal, without, of course, its dangers. He asked, whether the attention of the Home Secretary had been directed to that process, and whether any inquiries had been made with reference thereto?

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

Sir, my attention has been directed to the process of using lime for blasting purposes, as described by the hon. Member for Meath. It is, besides, my own opinion that there is much scientific knowledge possessed by us at the present time which might really conduce to the reduction of the loss of life if it could be practically applied. I have also been much struck by another question, and that is the lighting of mines, which would appear to be capable of very large improvement by means of electricity. No doubt, the electric light may be introduced and applied in various ways, so as to avoid all danger from the carrying of lamps or naked lights. I am glad that attention has been further directed to this subject by the hon. Member, so that nothing may be overlooked which may tend to mitigate the terrible loss of life which occurs; but I am bound to say that if hon. Members will compare the number of persons employed in mines and the amount of coal got up, they will see that the loss of life has been materially reduced since the Mines Regulation Act has been in force. On the other hand, I may add that we shall do all we possibly can to reduce still further this terrible, although I am bound to say, not growing, evil. With this view, I thought it right, not many months ago, to put myself in communication with the Royal Society, laying the case before them and asking if they could advise any means by which the desired result could be brought about. They received my application with that frankness and cordiality which might have been expected from the Royal Society, and discussed it, over and over again, at several meetings. Eventually they wrote me a letter informing me of their willingness to assist. The result was that I came to the conclusion that it would be wise for the Government to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the whole subject, and I communicated that decision to the Royal Society. I placed at their disposal four seats on the Committee, which they at once accepted, on condition that the remainder should be filled by practical men. A Royal Commission was, consequently, appointed, among the Members of which are the hon. Member for Durham (Sir George Elliot), and the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt), besides two of the most experienced mining engineers whom I could find. They have decided to go into the question of lighting, and that of blasting by gunpowder and lime, respectively, as well as the best means that can be produced for otherwise mitigating this loss of life. They must, of course, take some time in reaching a conclusion; but their sittings have already commenced, and I do hope that their labours will meet with success. With regard to the special point raised by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) as to the inquiries which have been held concerning colliery explosions, I am sure he would not wish to reduce this Vote by a single farthing. The expenses of the different persons who have gone down to attend these investigations being always paid according to the regular Treasury scale of so much per day, which is less than they could earn elsewhere. I assure the hon. Member that not one single farthing has been paid to anyone beyond the actual necessary expense of attendance. I think I may say also that £500 of the amount in question is for expenses attendant upon some of the inquiries held last year; and the accounts for these not having been sent in, that sum does not appear in the former Estimates, so that the real expense under this head for the present year is only £1,200. I hope the hon. Member will allow the Vote to pass.

MR. J. COWEN

, replying to the question raised by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), said, that lime had been successfully used for blasting purposes in Germany; but that its effect depended upon the description of the coal to be blasted, as well as upon the quality of the lime employed. He had himself seen the electric light applied in the North of England to the lighting of mines; but the objection there taken to it was that it did not throw light into the corners and crevices, while the cost of its application was immense. For these reasons he very much doubted whether it would ever be used in this country. As to the point before the Committee, he thought that neither the hon. Members for Morpeth (Mr. Burt) and Stafford (Mr. Macdonald), nor any persons interested in mining operations, had any blame to cast upon the mining administration of the right hon. Gentleman. On the contrary, they had nothing but encomiums to pass upon the way in which the Mines Regulation Act had been worked under his directions. Its application in special instances might have caused differences of opinion; but he believed that to be the general feeling of all persons interested in the mining districts. As to the expenses of attending inquests, it was impossible, in a statement upon Estimates, to give all the details. They could not have every item of expenditure stated, or if they did, the Estimates, instead of being comprised in the tolerably large book now presented, would require a volume four or five times as large. He therefore thought the hon. Member should be satisfied with the reply of the Home Secretary, that the sum of £1,700 had been expended on these inquiries, all of which, he thought, were inquiries that should have been held, and with the information which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to place at his disposal. If the hon. Member would permit the Vote to pass, he would have an opportunity of making any objection which he might entertain to particular items upon the Report.

MR. BURT

said, it was clear that all the hon. Member for Stafford wanted was to know where the money went, and in that he was quite right; while, with regard to the inquiries themselves, he had expressed nothing but approval. These inquiries had, no doubt, done a great deal of good. The Home Secretary had already, in his reply, given considerably more detailed information than was apparent on the face of the Estimates, and had pointed out that £500 of the amount was for fees and expenses incurred during the previous year. The item was, of course, a considerable portion of the £1,700, concerning which his hon. Friend (Mr. Macdonald) wanted an explanation. He entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) in advising that the question should be allowed to rest for the present; and, perhaps, at a future time, some more detailed information would be forthcoming.

MR. MACDONALD

pointed out that lime could never be used for blasting purposes unless the coal was holed underneath, which resulted in deterioration and waste. It could not burst coal or iron or stone out of the solid—there must be a weakness somewhere before lime could do any work. He felt bound to tell the hon. Member for Meath and the hon. Member for Newcastle, and the House, that slaked lime had been known to those engaged in mining operations for more than a century. He desired to obtain full information as to the cost of some of the inquiries that had been held which he thought he was entitled to have from the right hon. Gentleman, who had, however, referred him to the printed Reports in the Library of the House. But it was a fact that those Reports did not contain the desired information. He trusted that fuller information would be given, in order to satisfy a feeling which existed among the public that some of the inquiries cost a great deal too much. No one entertained more respect than he did for the services of the right hon. Gentleman in connection with the Home Office, especially those which related to mining operations. Since the death of Sir George Lewis, no one had attempted more or done so much as the present Home Secretary in that Department.

Vote agreed to.

(10.) £3,350, Foreign Office.

MR. PARNELL

remarked that this Vote contained an item for the travelling expenses of a messenger on continuous journeys to Berlin during the sitting of the Congress, and thought that the present was a good opportunity for Her Majesty's Opposition to take a Division upon the cost of this running backwards and forwards between Berlin and London, rendered necessary by the excitement got up last year by the Earl of Beaconsfield. He thought the Opposition Leaders would show their sense by dividing the Committee.

Vote agreed to.

(11.) £925, Colonial Office.

(12.) £327, Lunacy Commission, England.

(13.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £33,000, be granted to Her Majesty, 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. MUNTZ

could not understand how such an enormous amount could be spent upon stationery. The sum was continually on the increase, and, to his own knowledge, it had reached more than double what it was not very long ago.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

replied, that a large proportion of the addition to this item arose from the altered method of arranging the accounts in the Stationery Office, which it was believed, on the part of the Treasury, would render them more satisfactory in the future. The practice of the Stationery Office used to be to charge, or rather to estimate, for what they supplied to the printing offices, and this the Treasury conceived to be rather a vicious system of keeping the accounts. The consequence was a change, by which, for some few months past, only the actual amounts paid were allowed to be included? That change accounted for a very large portion of the total of this £33,000 which had been reached by the unexpected addition of several other items—namely, for printing the index for the Registrar General in Ireland, which cost £1,500 more than was anticipated. Again, the printing for the prisons in England was only roughly estimated last year, from want of knowledge at that time as to the amount that would really be wanted. Then there was nearly £2,000, that was not foreseen, for binding and stationery for the use of the Inland Revenue Office, estimated at £17,000, in the hope that this sum would cover the cost of their requirements, but which had actually amounted to £19,000. The real excess was £17,000, a large portion of which was due to the fact that there were certain contracts that should have been paid for out of the money voted last year, which money, as they were not sent in during the last financial year, was paid into the Exchequer, and had again to be provided. From this, it would be seen that the £33,000 now asked was really due to the adjustment of accounts, which would, in future, be placed on a far more satisfactory basis; and that the differences referred to were not the result of any miscalculation in the cost of stationery, wherein he begged to point out to the Committee a considerable saving had been effected.

MR. DILLWYN

said, this sum of £17,000 was a very large one to be attributed to unforeseen and exceptional work, and would like to receive a little further explanation.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

replied, that it had been the habit to allow a number of arrears to run on from year to year; that was not a satisfactory way of dealing with accounts; and the arrears, which had now been paid up, were included in the £17,000 referred to by the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn).

MR. BRISTOWE

said, that now they were upon the subject, he would call the attention of the Committee to another item that had not been touched upon. There was actually the sum of £5,500 additional for binding alone. In his opinion, the quantity of binding required would be pretty much the same for one year as for another. He could not understand that excessive increase of charge. At all events, he considered that those who had control of the Estimates should be able to frame them less wide of the mark.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, the explanation was that out of the sum of £5,500 referred to by the hon. Member, £3,300 was for a contract that had been outstanding during last year; and the money having been paid into the Exchequer had, therefore, to be again provided. The remaining £1,200 was for binding at the new prisons, concerning which, as was stated in the Vote last year, no papers were in the hands of the Department, and the amount of binding requisite was, therefore, unknown.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

remarked that he should vote this money with greater satisfaction if he could feel that more use was being made of the Papers and documents printed by order of the House. He thought many valuable Papers, which now went to the tallow-chandler and the butterman might, with great advantage, be sent to the Free Libraries throughout the country. He felt that something should be done by the Departments to assist these institutions with some of the documents which were printed by order of the House; and he was quite convinced that anyone who had practical knowledge on the subject would agree that no extra expense would be involved, as only about 100 extra copies would be required. He hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would give this matter his careful attention.

MR. HERMON

said, what he objected to about Parliamentary Papers was that they very often did not get them until after they were of use. There were certain Members who did not care for the Blue Books, and he must say that many of them were a great nuisance to himself; but there were many cases in which really important Papers did not come to hand till long after they were of use. He thought if competition was sought for the Parliamentary printing, they would get Papers with very much more expedition than now, and at less cost.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, there was a separate Department for the printing of Papers for the House of Commons, and over that Department the Stationery Department had no control. The question, however, had been under the notice of Mr. Speaker during last Session; and he confessed, for his own part, that he should be glad to fall in with the views of many hon. Members, and that an endeavour should be made to see if some fresh arrangement could not be come to in regard to the printing. It had often occurred to him that the Papers should only be sent to those Members who wished for them, and that they should be had on application; or that Members should have the power of directing them to be sent to some institutions at the end of the Session to meet the point which had been raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain).

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

asked whether the printing of books under the National Education Board in Ireland was included in this Vote? He assumed that it was, and he wanted to complain of the monopoly enjoyed by the booksellers of the Board in the sale of school books to be used in the National schools. These books had the reputation of being Government books, and there was a certain unpopularity attaching to them, as representing particular views; but, from a practical and business point of view, the inconvenience was also very great. All the teachers were allowed to sell only these books, and as a consequence, all competition was shut out. Although the children did get the books at a reduced price, yet the difference between that price and the trade price came out of the pockets of the ratepayers. The system also was unfair, because it prevented the booksellers of Ireland from competing for the sale of these school books, while, on the other hand, the taxpayers were obliged to pay more than was fair for the work done.

MR. WHEELHOUSE

knew, from his own experience, that great benefit resulted from sending Blue Books to people in the country; and, therefore, he did hope that the Government would do something to carry out the suggestion that had been made. He had long been in the habit of sending those of his Papers which he thought would interest them to some of his constituents. They had in Leeds a magnificent Free Library, to which he sent his copy of the Report on the Blantyre Explosion. That was a book which was so much in request that sometimes there were between 40 or 50 names down for it.

MR. RYLANDS

said, it had been suggested that the printing expenses of that House should be cut down. He was entirely opposed to narrow economy in matters of this kind; for it must be remembered that these Papers not only educated the country and furnished information to the nation, but they also were the means of educating Members of the House, and of furnishing them with facts on subjects in which they were interested.

MR. J. G. HUBBARD

did not think it should be suggested that there were any Members who did not use their Blue Books. Of course, they could not read all the Papers that were sent them; but some would read those that bore on the subject especially interesting to them, and others would study others. It must be remembered, also, that if these Papers were sold their diffusion all over the country did a great deal of good.

MR. WHITWELL

said, it was clear that if the objections to the new management were founded on economy, then the Supplemental Estimates justified such objections. The re-Vote of £ 10,000 had arisen from the changes made in the Department, and, therefore, did not really signify. As he understood the practice, they used to charge each Department with the stationery served out each day, and credit it to the Department when paid for. There might, however, be this difference in the ultimate result—that under this Vote they did not get all the money which certain Departments were formerly charged with; they only got a portion of it. This was not an improvement. Then, again, some of the accounts due were not estimated for until after the time for payment was passed. That was not the way in which the accounts of a Public Department should be kept. It was not right that £10,000 due to a man should not be paid because he had omitted to send in his account on a particular day. Again, great objection must be taken to a Department which permitted accounts to go into arrears of such long standing as these were. How could the public accounts be properly kept if now only the Committee was asked to vote the payment of an account which ought to have been paid two or three years ago? Amongst the Votes that evening several related to arrears of claims not paid in proper time. He did hope that the Stationery Department would be more thoroughly looked after than it was at present. He would mention one other item which seemed extraordinary in this account. £1,700 was originally estimated for the cost of the publication of a particular volume, and after it was published a Supplementary Estimate of £2,000 was made. Many details in this account required proper investigation, and he believed the cost of the publication of some of the Blue Books could be reduced by one-third.

MR. PELL

observed, that there was one thing of extreme importance with respect to the Parliamentary Papers which he should like to mention to the Committee. He thought it desirable to bring the subject forward, in order that those in whose charge the matter lay might be able to ascertain the cause of the evil. The Report of the Education Department—a very important document, which every Member of the House who cared for the public interests desired to see—was not delivered till the 8th of November. But 10 days before its delivery a review of the book appeared in the public papers. That was not the way in which Members should be treated. He was given to understand that there was a reason for this; but whatever reason there might be, the practice should be put an end to without delay. If the market were supplied first, including newspapers, libraries, and persons who were allowed to pay for the Papers, the first batch was thus taken off, and hon. Members were left to get theirs at a later period. No Paper was more important than the Report of the Education Department, and it was manifestly wrong that that document should have been kept back until the 8th of November. When he saw the review of the Report in The Times he came to the House for his Blue Book, and was told that he could not have it until the next batch was printed, which would not be until a day or two later. He hoped that attention would be called to this proceeding, and that for the future it would be stopped.

MR. MACDONALD

observed, that the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hermon) had touched upon the subject of economy in printing. It so happened that when the Blue Book in question was on his table a printer, whom he knew, came to see him. He asked what would be the cost of printing a book like that? The answer was, that he could get it up for 4s., which was 2s. 10d. less than the Government price. Two-and-tenpence was a considerable addition to make in the cost of printing by a Public Department; and he believed that if the printing of the country, instead of being always centred in the same hands, were thrown open, in accordance with the usual practice of buying in the cheapest market and selling in the dearest, then it would be found that the cost price of the printing of the country would be much reduced. He agreed with the hon. Member for Preston in thinking that until there was a public competition for the whole of the printing of the country it would not be done so cheaply as it ought to be. The right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. J. G. Hubbard) seemed to think that the printing was now very cheap. So the printing might be, if judged by the standard of the Bond Street bookseller. The Government Papers might be very cheap at the rates that such a bookseller would charge for them. But the fact still remained, that they were not done so cheaply as the public could get them done. The observations of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) were, in his opinion, perfectly true. In the town he had the honour to represent (Stafford) there was a working man's club, and he was in the habit of sending off nearly the whole of his books to that club, and he found that the workmen read these books with avidity. But could it be expected that a workman in the town of Stafford could pay 6s. 10d. for the Civil Service Estimates for the purpose of his private reading? It was impossible for workmen to do that out of their wages at the present moment; and until these Estimates were diffused among the working men of this country, and until the working people understood the amount of money which was thrown away by these Votes, they could never appreciate the working of this House. It would be highly desirable that the whole of these Estimates should be read by the working classes of this country, and to enable them to do that they should be sold for 6d. He believed that, if the Estimates were sold for 6d., more caution would be exercised in Public Expenditure, and a great deal less would be spent in the frivolous manner in which it was now done. Were the great body of the taxpayers to know that millions of money was voted here by half-a-dozen of persons, as it often was done, he believed that hon. Gentlemen who left this work to the few would very quickly have to fill the House, and what was more, exhibit greater interest in the whole question of voting Supply than they did now.

MR. J. COWEN

thought that the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) was under some misapprehension. No doubt the cost of one copy of the Civil Service Estimates was 6s. 10d.; but when the number of copies was multiplied the cost became less. The whole subject had repeatedly been brought before the notice of the House of Commons. In a former Session a Committee was appointed, of which his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) was a Member, to consider the subject. The printing of the House of Commons was one of the points which engaged their attention, as well as the expenses of the stationery in different Departments. He did not think that economy should be begun by reducing the sums spent on diffusing information for the benefit of the country; but he agreed with the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) that it would be desirable if that information could be more extensively scattered over the country. He would draw the attention of the noble Lord the Postmaster General to the question of devising some means by which these Papers might be cheaply distributed. There was scarcely any Constitutional country he knew of where facilities were not given for the distribution of information published by Parliament. The Congress of America published and distributed to Members a much larger amount of information than was the case in this country; and it not only did that, but it afforded free opportunities of sending the publications to the constituencies represented by the Members. In France, also, this was the case; and even in Germany, where, under the present régime, there was not thought to be any special desire to diffuse knowledge, better facilities existed for the transmission of official publications than in this country. If any means could be devised by which Members could be allowed to send official publications carriage free to public libraries, the boon would be highly appreciated, and it would relieve hon. Members of a considerable amount of inconvenience. With respect to getting the publications at an early date, he presumed that that matter could be remedied by the Secretary to the Treasury. He assumed, also, that the printing and stationery of the Public Departments was done under estimate; for he did not suppose the Government would allow themselves to be charged with the highest price. The Government ought not to pay more than a fair price for the printing and stationery. It should also be remembered that the cost of printing these publications ought to be cheaper than formerly, because there had been a considerable reduction in the price of paper. Therefore, without special information, he assumed that if the Government got their work done by estimate they had it done in the cheapest and most efficient manner.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

thought that it was very desirable to diffuse information throughout the country by means of Blue Books. They were not printed to sell; the cost of setting them up in type was incurred for the information of the House and for official purposes; the expense of print- ing additional copies to sell involved only the cost of the paper on which they were printed, for the cost of striking off additional copies was very trifling. Therefore, if the cost of paper and the expense of striking off additional copies of official Papers were alone taken into consideration, they could be sold at a very cheap price, and ought to be so sold. The present mode of charging for the transmission of Blue Books and Parliamentary Papers was very unsatisfactory, for by the book-post rate almost as much was charged for a pound of printed matter as for a pound of letters. He thought the Government might have additional copies printed as he had suggested, and have them sold at cost price, and circulated in the country at cost price—for there was no justification for making a profit out of these books, nor was there any reason why any profit should be made out of their transmission.

MR. DILLWYN

said, it was a common mistake, which could not be too often mentioned, that it was the printing of the Blue Books and Returns which constituted the greater part of this vast Estimate for printing and stationery. The fact was that these matters formed but a very small part of the expenses. With regard to the suggestion that those Members who did not want their Parliamentary Papers might have them sent to institutions in their constituencies, he did not think that that suggestion was of much value, because there were very few Members who did not want the books. For his own part, he wanted the most important Blue Books, and kept them for reference from one Session to another; and it would probably happen that one which he did not require his constituents would not also care for, so that the plan was not likely to answer.

MAJOR NOLAN

wished to draw attention to what had happened to him once or twice during the present Session—namely, that a document was to be found in the newspapers some two or three days before it was placed in the hands of hon. Members. The plan had caused him great confusion, for seeing the review of a Blue Book he had thought he had omitted to notice it, and had looked amongst his Papers for it, and had subsequently found that it was issued to him two or three days after- wards. He thought that this was a grievance which ought to be rectified by the persons in charge of the Stationery Department. Moreover, the grievance did not stop there, for all the newspapers did not get these publications, and there was a good deal of jealousy amongst the Press in consequence of some newspapers getting copies in advance of others. He thought that some measure should be taken to prevent these publications from getting into the hands of the newspapers before they were issued to Members, for Members were placed at a disadvantage when information appeared in the papers and the public know of it before it came to their knowledge.

MR. MELDON

hoped that there would be some reduction made in this Vote, in accordance with the hopes which the Secretary to the Treasury had held out. He begged to call attention to the matter in order that it might be remedied before the Estimates for the next year came under consideration. With regard to the distribution of Parliamentary Papers, it had been suggested that there should be a larger distribution throughout the country; but attention had not been called to the fact that during the Parliamentary Recess Papers only reached hon. Members if they chanced to be in London. During the Vacation the most important Papers were delivered, and Members had no means of getting them unless they made arrangements to have them forwarded to them. He believed that in Dublin and Edinburgh there were offices where the Papers were issued to Members without expense. On former occasions he had been told that this matter would be looked to, but up to the present time nothing whatever had been done. As regarded the expense of printing, there was one point to which he was surprised attention had not been called, and that was that a report had been generally circulated that an eminent printer had guaranteed to do the printing of the House of Commons for one-half of the amount now paid. That was an important fact; and he thought there ought to be some inquiry into the subject, with a view of seeing whether there were not printers in London who would undertake the work at half the expense now incurred. It was a monstrous thing, if that were the case, that the country should now be paying the large sums it was. Hon. Members had not ever been told whether, at the present time, the printing of the House was done by contract. He believed that if it were put up to contract, the amount now expended would be considerably reduced. Some reference had been made by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr O'Shaughnessy) to the Report on National Education. The books used by the National teachers of Ireland, under the present system, must be printed by the Government, and the teachers were not allowed to sell any but Government books. Formerly the teachers had a small commission on the Government sales; but recently, notwithstanding the fact that the small salaries of those teachers had been a matter of strong comment, this commission had been taken from them. He believed that the books in question could be more cheaply printed by private printers, and could be sold for a less price than they now were. When the small commission for the sale of these books was withdrawn from the teachers they were given nothing in its place. He hoped that before the Estimates came up next Session this matter would receive the attention it deserved.

MR. J. COWEN

wished to make an explanation with regard to the statement of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan). It was a fact that anyone who paid 16 guineas a-year was supplied with all the Blue Books and official Papers. He believed that those who paid that sum were entitled to receive the Books earlier than Members, and it was from that circumstance the newspapers obtained the Reports referred to.

MAJOR NOLAN

thought that that explanation made the matter much worse. Hon. Members were sent there by their constituents to look after their interests, and yet they were not treated so well by the country as persons that paid 16 guineas a-year.

MR. DILLWYN

asked whether the Papers were printed by contract or not?

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, that the printing of the House of Commons was not under the control of the Stationery Department.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

suggested that a Committee should be appointed to investigate into the whole subject of the printing of the House. With reference to the Supplementary Estimate of £17,000, he thought it was a very large sum, especially so when hon. Members remembered the boast which had been made that a considerable saving would be effected by the new appointment to which reference had been made. With regard to the distribution of the Parliamentary Papers, he was entirely of opinion that it failed to meet the requirements of Members; and he thought that they should have this information on the Supplementary Estimates in time for the coming Estimates.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, he did not wish to delay the taking of this Vote, but he certainly wanted a little further information with reference to the question he had raised. It was one of the greatest importance, and excited in the country an amount of interest which could hardly be appreciated by those who were resident in London. What he had suggested was that the Government should use its influence in order to secure the distribution of the more important Bills and Reports of Committees amongst a certain number of public institutions in the Provinces to the extent of not more than 100. The Secretary to the Treasury had told him that the Stationery Department had very little to do with this matter—that it was not responsible; but it appeared to him that the Stationery Department found the paper for printing and the binding, and he did not know any other Vote upon which to raise this subject. The Secretary to the Treasury sympathized with the object he had in view; but he did not think the proposition of the hon. Gentleman at all satisfactory. He suggested that a great many Members did not want their Papers, and therefore these could be utilized as he had suggested. He pointed out that those who did not want their Papers would not be connected with large towns, but they who were connected with those towns found that they did want their Papers, and that they could not spare them, even for the purpose for which he now asked them from the Government. Those Members complained of the large sums of money taken from the Metropolitan towns in England and Scotland for the maintenance of public libraries—the British Museum, and similar institutions in London—and they asked that some corresponding advantage should be made to libraries in the leading towns in the Provinces. He did not suppose that that was exactly the time to press upon the Government any immediate expenditure; but he calculated that his proposal would involve no increased outlay. He assumed that the number of documents printed varied in accordance with the importance of the subject; and he undertook to say that the printing of 100 additional copies would not be appreciable. The type being set up, the cost involved would only amount to the value of the paper. His own opinion was that the 100 copies might be taken from the stock which went into the cellar of the House, and was never seen afterwards. There was not a public library in the North or South of America which did not have every public document supplied free by the Government; and what he proposed was that in the case of really important public documents, issued at the instance of and by the authority of the Government, and all Reports of Committees, one copy of each of these documents should be sent to the great public institutions—such as public reference libraries in great towns.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, he thought the hon. Gentleman misunderstood what he had said. It was, that hon. Members were always ready to condemn the growing expenditure of the country, and one of the expenses complained of was the large amount annually spent for the printing of the Blue Books of the House of Commons. The printing of the Bills, and of the different Books and Papers, was managed in this way—Copies of all the different Books were printed, and were divided by order of Mr. Speaker into a double list. On one list a certain number of Books and Papers were entered, and those were left in the House of Commons, where Members could put their names down for a copy, while the others were sent to each Member. His suggestion was that as there were numerous instances in which Members took so little interest in their Papers as not to require them, that those Papers might be utilized for the purpose suggested by the hon. Member, while, at the same time, avoiding any increase of expenditure. It would, however, be inconsistent to create the right of every hon. Member to a second copy—such a course would double the number issued.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, the Secretary to the Treasury had a little misunderstood his suggestion. What he had suggested was that certain public institutions, not exceeding 100, should have the right to take a copy of these Bills and Reports; and he believed that the cost of printing 100 copies extra, even if that were necessary, would but amount to a fractional increase of expenditure.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, he was of opinion that the number of copies printed was in excess of the number required, and he quite agreed with the hon. Member for Birmingham that his suggestion might be carried out with a very little extra cost. He was strongly in favour of the point raised by the hon. Member.

MR. PARNELL

thought the Secretary to the Treasury was a little "penny-wise." He told them that they must all be very economical. He thought the reason why the Government opposed the proposition was because they were determined it should not be complied with. He believed the Government dared not allow the Papers published by Parliament a large circulation in the country. If they did, the public would understand questions in a manner not at all pleasant to the occupants of the Treasury Bench at the present time. He asked the hon. Baronet to elevate himself, to take a high standard, and to approach this subject with some sense of the grave considerations it involved. Was it a proper way to answer the hon. Member for Birmingham to suggest that those Members who took so little interest in the proceedings of Parliament and their duties to their constituencies as never to call for their Papers, who did not even care whether they saw them or not from one Session to another, should be invited to give directions that those Papers should be placed at the disposal of the Government for the purpose of circulating them amongst the public institutions of the country? It was idle to suppose that a Member who thought so little of his duties would go out of his way to sign an order, or give directions that his Papers should be forwarded to a public institution.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, he never suggested anything of the kind. What he said was that there were two sets of documents, one circulated amongst Members, and the others not; that as a great many Members never required the second copy they might be induced to give instructions that the copy at their disposal might be forwarded to the public libraries.

MR. PARNELL

said, that was at least a complicated way in which to arrive at the simple conclusion he had drawn. They paid £484,000 for printing and stationery; and supposing they had 100 more copies of the public Papers printed, how much more would the cost be? Perhaps a quarter per cent; but, in all probability, £1,000 would suffice. He hoped it would go forth as the opinion of the front Treasury Bench that, although Parliament might provide copies for itself at the expense of £484,000 a-year, the Government was not of opinion that it was desirable to provide the large towns with 100 extra copies.

MR. RITCHIE

hoped the Government would consent to no such proposition as this. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) had said that not more than 100 copies would be required; but he had no doubt that if that number were granted others would be demanded. What Member was there in the House who had not a high opinion of the merits and claims of some club or library in his constituency, and who would not think it an unequal rule if he did not get a copy? So far as his experience went, there was not the slightest difficulty in obtaining copies of those documents. He remembered a special case two years ago in which a friend of his wanted a special Blue Book for his constituents who were greatly interested in it. By simply asking Members of the House he got no less than 15 copies of that Blue Book to send to his constituents. Hon. Members opposite were particularly careful, when addressing their constituents, to point out any increase in the expenses of Government Departments, and to find fault with such increase, however small it might be. It was those hon. Members who were now asking the Government to increase the already heavy expenses in a manner which he thought altogether unnecessary.

MR. BARRAN

thought the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) could not have had much experience in connection with public libraries, and he probably fairly represented a district which had no public libraries. If the hon. Member had had some of the experiences of Members of that House he would not have used the arguments he had put forward. He supported the proposal, because he knew the desire there was amongst the people to possess these Reports, and to use them as a means of acquainting themselves with the affairs of the nation. He thought public institutions ought to be supplied direct from that House with the Reports suggested by the hon. Member for Birmingham, and that public libraries ought to be encouraged. Those who were connected with public libraries felt that the more they could store the mind of the public with the legislation for the people—pecuniary or otherwise—and the more they could stimulate the desire for this knowledge on the part of the people, the better they would be fitted to discharge their duties towards their country. They were told, from time to time, that the people were not sufficiently informed to give opinions on matters coming before the House; and he thought the easiest way to make them so was to give them the information which would be conveyed to them through the adoption of the proposition of the hon. Member.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, he must say that the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) did not show much magnanimity to his proposition. The hon. Member represented a Metropolitan constituency—the Tower Hamlets—which took part in the advantage of free libraries, free picture galleries, and museums, which were provided at the expense of the nation, and towards which they in the country had to contribute; and, therefore, when they asked that a few pounds should be spent in order that the country people might have the advantage of these Books, in a fit of unwonted economy the hon. Member got up and offered his opposition. He ventured to suggest to the hon. Member that he should wait until the Vote was abused before suggesting the possibility of it. His proposition was that these books should be provided to 100 free libraries—maintained out of the rates and managed under local municipal control—and he begged to give Notice on going into Committee on the Civil Service Estimates of a Resolution.

MR. MUNTZ

thought it was absurd to I send round to Members Blue Books and Papers which, perhaps, no one ever took any interest in. He thought Members should have on their tables instead a list of Sessional Papers, and those who desired might apply for them. He was perfectly certain £100,000 a-year was thrown away in Blue Books, &c. Those who wanted special copies had found great difficulty in getting them. He hoped the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) would follow his example, and send his books to a library. He had forwarded his to the Birmingham Free Library; but, unfortunately, they had all been destroyed in the late fire.

MR. DILLWYN

said, he had been unable to obtain copies for a library in his own town.

MR. ANDERSON

said, that probably the hon. Member for Birmingham, like a good many other Representatives of large constituencies, had plenty of other work, without running about asking Members for their spare Blue Books. If the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury thought the proposition such a good one, could he not go a little further and say that it would be agreed to?

MR. BIGGAR

said, it appeared to him to be a great mistake that newspapers were supplied with copies in advance of Members. The result was that the Members saw summaries of their contents in the newspapers before having the official document itself. With regard to the printing, the hon. Baronet did not seem to know the way in which it was done. He wished he would explain the system of giving the contracts, and the way in which the printing was carried out. They had been told that the printing could be done at half the present cost to the Government. If that were anything like truth, it appeared that the business of the Government was carried on in a very unprincipled manner. He begged to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £10,000.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £23,000, be granted to Her Majesty, 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 Ire- land, 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.)

MR. MORGAN LLOYD

inquired whether it was a fact that one or two newspapers received information in advance of the others? because, if that was so, it appeared to him to be a proceeding that did not recommend itself to the Members of that House. The rule should be either to send copies of Parliamentary Papers to all the newspapers, at all events to those published in London, no matter what their political opinions were—or to none.

MR. BIGGAR

said, the hon. Baronet had not replied to his inquiry whether or not he would do so as he had asked him?

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

assured the hon. Gentleman that no discourtesy had been intended. He had already stated to the House that neither he nor the Government knew of any such priority as that referred to in the delivery of Parliamentary Papers. He understood that it was suggested by the hon. Member that some such preference had been shown, and he would endeavour to ascertain the facts before Report. He could not promise to do what had been asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan), because the Government had no power in that matter, which was entirely under the control of Mr. Speaker. The House of Commons used its official authority in regulating the printing of all books, and the stationery in stock, whilst the Stationery Office simply found the material.

MR. W. H. JAMES

inquired whether the hon. Baronet would ask Mr. Speaker to give his consent to the documents in question being presented to the public libraries? He also desired to know what became of the surplus documents now? There was, undoubtedly, a limited number of persons who had time to investigate questions which appeared in the Blue Books; and he asked the hon. Baronet what there was to prevent those documents, printed in excess of the required number, being sent, as suggested, to the public libraries?

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, that was exactly his original proposal—that the surplus documents should be utilized in the way suggested by the hon. Member. The suggestion had been under the consideration of Mr. Speaker during the last Session—indeed, the whole subject of printing for the House of Commons was being considered with a view to its revision. The subject should again be brought under the notice of Mr. Speaker, and it was to be hoped that an arrangement, satisfactory to hon. Members, would be arrived at.

MR. PARNELL

thought that the hon. Gentleman had forgotten what he had stated to the Committee some time ago, that there was a surplus of books down in the cellar, which he proposed should be distributed amongst the public libraries. It would be very interesting if it could be ascertained what became of all those books that were sent down to the cellar and not used, over and above the number issued to private Members.

Mr. W. H. JAMES

pointed out to the hon. Baronet that he had not answered his question as to whether the Government would use its influence with Mr. Speaker with reference to those documents?

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

was very anxious to save the time of the Committee, and therefore hoped the hon. Baronet would answer the question. He (Mr. Chamberlain) had given Notice that the question would be raised by him at another time; but this would not be necessary if the question of the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. James) were replied to. Again, if Mr. Speaker consented, would the Government do what laid in their power to forward the proposal?

MR. BIGGAR

said, he had moved the reduction of this Vote because he had not received a satisfactory reply to his question; but an explanation, which was satisfactory to him, having been given, he asked leave to withdraw his Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

could not pledge himself beforehand. He had said, that the subject should be again brought under the notice of Mr. Speaker, with whom the Treasury were in communication, with the view of reconsidering the whole of the printing of the House of Commons.

MR. PARNELL

had omitted to make some remarks upon a very important question. It would be remembered that a Division had been taken last Session against a portion of the Vote for the Stationery Department, on the ground that £271 of the money asked had been expended in stationery for the Queen's University in Ireland. It was the intention of the Irish Members to use their best exertions to prevent the Queen's University getting any money, directly or indirectly, from the House of Commons. He perceived that the present Vote was for a Supplemental Estimate of the amount required for the expense of stationery, printing, and books for several Departments in England, Ireland, and Scotland. Assuming that the Queen's University in Ireland was one of those Departments, he objected to the Vote.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(14.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a Supplementary Bum, not exceeding £206, be granted to Her Majesty, 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 of the Officers and Attendants of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and other Expenses.

MR. PARNELL

said, he was very unwilling to introduce a personal question into the discussion of that Vote, and that which he was about to raise was more of a public than a personal character. He had no fault to find with the salaries paid to the officers of the Household; but there was an item of £150 per annum, appearing as an allowance to the Chaplain for an official residence. That allowance had very much the appearance of a job; and he rather fancied that it was but an increase to the Chaplain's salary, to enable him to pay an assistant. He merely wished for an explanation from the Chief Secretary for Ireland, as to whether the Chaplain of the Castle in Dublin ever did occupy any other than his own private house; and whether, in fact, it was not an addition to his salary, pure and simple, under the guise of supplying him with an official residence, of which he never made any use? They could understand that the Chaplain of the Castle did not desire to reside in his official residence, and that he might prefer to live in his own house; but what was the reason for granting him £150 a-year for the loss of a thing for which he cared nothing? He would be glad to find that his idea was incorrect. As to the incidental expenses, it was his intention to take a Division against the whole Vote for the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when it came on, because he thought that if Ireland was to be governed as a portion of England the Lord Lieutenancy ought to be abolished. He did not understand the principle that Ireland was to be governed as a portion of the United Kingdom, and still have the Lord Lieutenant as Representative of the Queen conducting the ceremonies of a mock Court. For his part, there was nobody who would be more rejoiced, if they had their own Parliament in Ireland, to see the Lord Lieutenant again carrying out his functions as Representative of Royalty; but so long as the badge of provincialism was affixed to Ireland, he thought it was only right to hold the English Government to its bargain. It had been a matter of regret, and considered as a remarkable fact, that no Representative of the Viceroy had waited upon Her Majesty, the Empress of Austria, when she honoured Ireland by landing on her shores, and this duty was left to be performed, as well as it might be, by the Lord Mayor of Dublin. He moved the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £191.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £15, be granted to Her Majesty, 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 of the Officers and Attendants of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and other Expenses."—(Mr. Parnell.)

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he must remind the hon. Member that the Empress of Austria, on the occasion referred to, came to Ireland as a private person, which was the reason that no Representative of Her Majesty had waited upon her. With regard to the Chaplain of the Castle, the sum of £150 was paid by arrangement during the time his official residence was under repair.

MR. PARNELL

said, of course the reply of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Lowther) was to be taken as conclusive. It was, however, just what he had expected. Government were going to make an addition to the salary of the Chaplain of £150 a-year, because it wag found that the official residence had fallen out of repair from not being used.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, the real explanation was that there had been several cases of typhoid fever in the house, and the Chaplain had left in consequence. An inquiry had been held by the Board of Works, and they reported against the house being retained as an official residence, at the same time recommending an allowance to the Chaplain during the time that it was undergoing repairs.

MR. PARNELL

inquired if the Chaplain had been in the habit of residing in the house before that circumstance occurred?

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

replied, that the Chaplain had resided in the house before the cases of fever had occurred.

MR. M. BROOKS

knew the Chaplain of the Castle to be one of those people who had taken a great interest in the condition of the public health in Ireland, and who would never shrink from any duty that properly fell upon him. He would certainly not leave his residence without a sufficient reason. He. (Mr. Brooks) appealed to his hon. Friend not to press his Amendment.

MAJOR NOLAN

wished to know whether the Chaplain was of the same religion as the Viceroy?

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, the Chaplain was of the same religion as the Viceroy. He had not been appointed by the Lord Lieutenant, but had held his office previously.

MR. BIGGAR

wished to know whether, although the Church of Ireland had been disestablished and disendowed, the Dean was dependent upon the public funds?

MR. PARNELL

had no personal feeling in the matter, but remarked that the item in question looked rather suspicious; and certainly the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Lowther) was neither happy nor fortunate. He was ready to withdraw his Motion for the reduction of the Vote; but, at the same time, he thought it would have been a better course for the Government to adopt, if they had put the Dean's house into a proper sanitary condition. That could have been done, probably, at very much less cost than the capital sum given by way of allowance, and would not have had the effect of increasing his salary by a side wind.

MR. MELDON

said, the amount of disease about the Castle was scandalous to the country, and was the source of disease to those who were compelled to live in its precincts.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(15.) £390, Chief Secretary for Ireland, Offices.

MR. PARNELL

said, he should oppose this Vote, although he should not put the Committee to the trouble of a Division, and he would not trouble the Committee either with a long speech. His reason for opposing the Vote was that, in his opinion, Irish Members would get on better without a Chief Secretary for their country.

Vote agreed to.

(16.) £560, Public Works Office, Ireland.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

asked what the Government intended to do in regard to the Board of Works?

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, this matter had been for some time under the serious consideration of the Government. After the receipt of the Report of the Committee which inquired into this matter they came to the conclusion that the Board of Works was undermanned, and that it would be desirable to increase the number of Commissioners to that originally intended. The Government also intended to bring in and pass, if possible, this Session, an Act to consolidate the whole of the Acts dealing with the duties and operations of the Board of Works. They proposed to amend certain of the functions of the Board, in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee, and they intended to nominate a Member of the Government, a Member also of the Treasury, as an ex-officio member of the Board of Works, so that the Board might be represented directly in the House of Commons. He would sit as a member of the Board, and would, therefore, be aware of the action of the Board, and, at the same time, be a Representative of the Treasury. This was roughly the outline of the scheme which it was the intention of the Government to propose with the view of carrying out some of the recommendations of the Committee. It might take some little time to put the scheme into definite shape; but he trusted that when it was finished and formulated a real amendment of the Board of Works would take place.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, this was so important a matter that he thought there ought to be a distinct and definite statement made by the Government going into the whole matter. Was the Government going to intrust to a Member of the Government the official representation of the Board of Works in that House, or were they going to recommend that there should be a responsible Minister, as had been recommended? If they did not state more clearly what they intended to do, he should be driven into entering on a discussion on this subject, though he did not wish to take that course. He was exceedingly anxious that nothing should be said that would be painful to the feelings of any member of the Board; but unless the Government took up this matter in a really serious way, and were prepared to investigate and deal with the Report of the Committee in a reasonable manner, he would be obliged to initiate a discussion which would be extremely painful to members of the Board. That Board had been responsible for a great deal of the feeling of dissatisfaction which at present existed in Ireland towards the English Government; and the Treasury ought, therefore, to be glad of the opportunity given them by the Report for showing that the good intentions of the English Government had been defeated only by the performance of the functions of this Board in Ireland.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

could assure the hon. Gentleman that the Report and proceedings of the Committee had received the serious consideration of the Government. The Vote at present before the Committee was merely a Supplemental one for the works of last year; but he trusted that before the regular Vote came on for discussion in the ordinary course, the Government would be in a position to give a full explanation as to what would be done. The real cause of the weakness of the Board was that its duties had been increased, while its strength had been reduced. At the proper time he should be prepared to state the proposals of the Government; but he thought it better not to enter into details of an arrangement which, as yet was not quite complete.

MR. PARNELL

considered that the Irish Members had grave grounds for complaint. The Committee reported a year ago. ["No, no!"] Well, nearly 10 months ago, and yet the Government proposals were still immature. They were now invited by the Government to defer the discussion of this question till the Irish Votes came on; but they knew very well that those Votes were never taken till August, when everybody was tired out. Therefore, he thought that Irish Members were wise to seize this—which was practically their only opportunity. If the Chief Secretary had only paid attention to this matter during the winter, as he ought to have done, he would have been prepared to state the Government proposals by this time.

MR. J. LOWTHER

begged to remind the hon. Member that this matter belonged to the Treasury. He was not responsible for the Department of Works, and had nothing to do with it.

MAJOR NOLAN

asked whether, in the course of the re-organization of the Department intended by the Government, any additional facilities would be afforded for giving effect to the Bright clauses of the Irish Land Act?

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

, in reply, admitted the importance of the question put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and the matter was at present under the consideration of the Government. He was not, however, at liberty to state at present what course would be taken with regard to it.

MR. M. BROOKS

hoped the opposition to this Supplementary Vote would not be pressed. It was not only in Dublin that the Board of Works was under-manned and underpaid. This Vote intended, in some respects, to remedy the evil, and, if passed, was calculated to have a salutary effect.

MR. CALLAN

said, the officials of the Board were overpaid, and he denied that they were overworked. He knew that of some of them; and though he would not go into the matter unless he were pressed, he would tell any hon. Member who chose to ask him. There was one man—Colonel M'Kerlie—who was notoriously unfit for his post.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, he could not allow such a statement to pass unchallenged. Colonel M'Kerlie was a very valuable public servant; and, so far from being under worked, it was excess of zeal and the desire to do more than he was able which broke him down.

MR. CALLAN

said, as he had been challenged to prove what he had said, he must do so. He would, therefore, give the Committee an instance of Colonel M'Kerlie's conduct. In 1870 an officer passed an examination for the inspection of the Boyne county. He passed the examination most creditably, and after calling on Colonel M'Kerlie, was asked to go into his room. He did not wish to make this personal statement, but for the wanton challenge of the Secretary to the Treasury. Colonel M'Kerlie asked him where he had been in the last year, and he said in Wexford. Colonel M'Kerlie said—"Well, and what have you been doing there?" Mr. Dodd said he had been with the Christian Brothers. Colonel M'Kerlie then said—"Oh! Are you a Roman Catholic?" To which Mr. Dodd replied "Yes." Within a week the appointment was cancelled. Mr. Chichester Fortescue was Chief Secretary at the time, and the case was represented to him, and he brought a Motion forward—which he did not persist in, however, for he was asked not to do so. The reason was that he got the appointment of the Christian Brother in another Department. He, however, had watched Colonel M'Kerlie's proceedings since; and he could say that, so far as the Irish Catholics were concerned, they looked upon Colonel M'Kerlie's conduct in regard to the Board of Works as bigoted in the extreme, and he had surrounded himself with a bigoted party. He must say, however, that he did not join in the dispraise of the present Chief Secretary for Ireland. Whenever he had gone to him on business, he had found civility, cordiality, and willingness to oblige. He wished there were more officials of the same kind. At the same time, he was very sorry that he had not more influence over the Irish Board of Works. Would the new official have such control, or would he be a mere ornamental feature?

MAJOR O'GORMAN

said, in consequence of what he had observed, he would be en ungrateful person if he did not publicly acknowledge the great kindness and politeness with which he had been treated by the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury—he did not know whether he was a right hon. or not. He went to his office one day, accompanied by the noble Lord the Member for the County of Waterford (Lord Charles Beresford) and by his hon. Colleague the Member for the City of Waterford (Mr. R. Power). He happened to be the first to enter the room, and he asked the hon. Baronet for £40.000 for creating a dry dock for Waterford, and within three days the hon. Baronet gave him the £40,000. Now, that was a positive fact, and a somewhat remarkable fact. That was to say, they had not actually got the £40,000. It was certain the board could draw upon it whenever they liked; but his friends in Waterford had not yet drawn a single shilling of it, although it was advanced on the 31st of July, 1878. Now, that was not the fault of the hon. Baronet, and it was not his (Major O'Gorman's) fault; because he remembered he was hurried to the Treasury on a hot July day in the most dreadful manner; but at that moment not one single shilling, so graciously vouchsafed to them in the most handsome manner by the hon. Baronet—whom he begged leave distinctly at that moment, if he had not done so before, as he believed he had, to thank most sincerely—had been spent upon the dry dock at Waterford. He was ashamed to say that he rather thought that the hon. Baronet might call upon him to restore the money which had not been spent. He might ask—"What are you about? Why don't you go on with your dry dock at Waterford?" And he could not give them an answer to that question. He could not, indeed. They had a Harbour Board at Waterford, and a very handsome board. He never saw anything so remarkably handsome as the room in which they sat—it could not have been better if the £40,000 had been spent upon it; but they had not done a single thing towards the dry dock—even through the winter, when work was wanted in Waterford—although the money was granted to them in July, 1878, by the generosity of the hon. Baronet.

MAJOR NOLAN

asked if the general constitution of the Board would be submitted to the House, and whether they would have an opportunity of voting on the new salaries?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, a statement would be made to the House when the arrangements were made; and whenever the Estimates were brought forward, there would be an opportunity of challenging any salaries that might be proposed.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

would like to know whether the new officer would be under the Treasury or under the Chief Secretary?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

replied that the new officer would be attached to the Treasury, and would have special charge of the business connected with the Board of Works.

Vote agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported.