§
(8.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £80,000, "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 1882, for the Salaries and Working Expenses of the Post Office Telegraph Service.
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, that, no doubt, there was a great deal to be said with regard to this Vote. He was one of those who thought that his right hon. Friend had done more for the Post Office Service than any of his Predecessors for years past. To the best of his ability the right hon. Gentleman had improved the condition of that Office, therefore he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) was not going to offer the least obstruction to the Vote under discussion. What he had risen for was to say that it was most unfair on the Committee, and on the country, that the Estimates should be taken at the time they were last year, and at the time they had been taken of late; and he would ask the noble Lord to give them some assurance that they would have the Estimates to discuss and consider at a fair and proper time, the Estimates being things peculiarly for the discussion of the Committee of the Whole House. It was highly improper that their discussion should be put off for Business that was less pressing.
§ MR. ONSLOWsaid, that before the Vote was passed, he should like to ask one question. In answer to a question put by an hon. Member the other day as to the Post Office telegraphs the right hon. Gentleman had made the assertion that in every instance claims arising for seniority and fitness had been most carefully weighed. Well, he (Mr. Onslow) has led to believe that that statement was rather misleading, and that seniority had not always been taken into consideration, but had been ignored. A gentleman who had written to him had said the answer of the Postmaster General was quite misleading, and "a typical case of the misstatements that are made as to telegraph clerks." The scheme laid down last year was 144 that seniority should take precedence over every other consideration; and he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would like in any way to qualify the answer he gave the other day? It was considered in many quarters as not quite correct; and he (Mr. Onslow) wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had any further information to give the House?
§ MR. FAWCETTsaid, he believed the answer he gave the other day was really strictly accurate. He had never supposed that seniority was the sole controlling force in determining promotion; but that promotion was determined on two considerations, one seniority and one fitness, and he had said that in arranging promotion many thousands of cases had to be considered. He had taken the advice of the most experienced officials in the Post Office, and in every case where seniority was not the sole cause the two elements or factors of the problem, seniority and fitness, were taken into consideration. He did not mean to say that in no single instance had a mistake been made; but he felt certain that the utmost possible care had been taken in all these promotions to make them just and fair.
§ MR. ONSLOWwished to know who decided as to a person's fitness for promotion? Was it the local officer in charge, who might have some bias against a particular individual, which the Postmaster General might know nothing about, and which the Committee, who might have to make the promotion, would never hear of? Unless there was something against a particular individual seniority should have a prior claim. He did not wish to mention names; but he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that in many cases great dissatisfaction was felt by gentlemen who had been honestly doing their duty for years past, because they had been superseded, and for no reason whatever, many of them thinking that they ought to have been amongst the first to be promoted on account of their merit. In some cases there had been—he would not say unfair play—but unnecessary stigmas put upon clerks by the heads of Post Offices.
§ MR. FAWCETTsaid, he did not know anything more difficult to determine than the exact amount of consideration that ought to be given respectively to the 145 two elements of seniority and fitness; but he could say this without hesitation—that in every single case where it was proposed to appoint a junior over the head of one of his seniors most specific information had been asked for, not only from the postmaster, but from the surveyor of the district, to justify the recommendation, and if they had not been satisfied with the reasons given for placing a junior over a senior they disallowed the recommendation of the local authorities.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, that hon. Members ought really to consider the manner in which the Government were conducting the Business of the country. To appeal to the Committee night after night to go on with Supply at this late hour was most improper, when they were studiously wasting the time of the House themselves with all kinds of un-necessary Motions. They were wasting the time of the House by bringing in Motions about the House of Lords.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he was going to move to report Progress, and he would tell the Committee why he did it. He should confine himself as closely as possible to the Question. His reason was that the Government asked them to take an unusual course at an unusually late hour; and he thought he was entitled to say that such a demand as that could only come with a good grace from those who showed that they were themselves the guardians of the time of the House. The Government had a higher duty than that of bringing in a mass of legislation of all kinds—namely, to bring on the discussion of the Estimates at a time when they could be properly discussed. The 16th of August had arrived last year before the Committee reached the Votes to which reference had been made, and on the 22nd of August they were engaged for the first time that Session in the discussion of the welfare of 250,000,000 of Her Majesty's subjects.
§ Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Warton.)
§ MR. SEXTONsaid he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question. 146 The Committee was aware that the Postmaster General, in obedience to the warrant of the Home Secretary, for some time had allowed his subordinates to open and read, and, he supposed, copy the correspondence of persons in this country. He wished to know if that system continued in the Post Office and in the Telegraph Department? Had the Postmaster General's subordinates instructions to submit selected messages to their superiors in the Post Office? Did the Postmaster General make a selection of telegraphic messages and submit them to Departments outside his own for political reasons, or was the integrity and secrecy of the Telegraph Department preserved?
§ MR. FAWCETTsaid, he could only say that he had no authority to divulge any secret that came to his knowledge.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, all he wished to know was whether the warrant of the Home Secretary operated in this direction or not. Was the authority of the Home Secretary used for that purpose?
§ MR. FAWCETTsaid, that was really a question which must be put to the Home Secretary himself, and not to him (Mr. Fawcett).
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ MR. GRAYsaid, he had a somewhat similar question to put to the right hon. Gentleman, and one to which he hoped he should receive a more distinct answer. As the right hon. Gentleman was no doubt aware, there were special wires running between the London offices of certain newspapers and the local offices. He wished to ask whether on any occasion these wires, or any one of them, had been tapped secretly for the purpose of ascertaining what communications were sent from one office to the other? He was aware that very frequently the wires were openly tapped for the purpose of ascertaining whether private messages were being sent, or whether the wires were working properly. But he wanted to get at whether they were ever secretly tapped and the communications passing along them taken off and copied?
§ MR. FAWCETTCertainly not, to my knowledge.
§ MR. REDMONDsaid, the right hon. Gentleman would be consulting his own convenience, and the convenience of the Committee, if he would stand up and 147 give the Committee some assurance that the warrant of the Home Secretary had not been used in the way the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had suggested. This opened up a large question, and unless the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to giving the assurance asked for, he did not see how the Committee could consent to the Vote. He had thought that another Vote ought to have been postponed in consequence of an almost similar question arising—namely, the opening and detaining, and in many cases even destroying, a man's letters. In deference to the opinions of hon. Members all round him, he had consented to allow the discussion of that matter to stand over until the proper Estimates came up; but certainly this question of tampering with telegrams was one of such importance that the Vote ought not to be taken unless every information were given hon. Members. With that view he would move that the Chairman leave the Chair.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Redmond.)
§ MR. FAWCETTsaid, it was not for him to quarrel with hon. Members for raising this question of the warrants. He hoped they would not think he was guilty of any discourtesy to them if he said this did not appear the proper occasion to put the question, or to say—"We will stop the Vote until we get an explanation." What would be result of doing such a thing as that? Who would suffer? Why, the unfortunate sorters and telegraphists, who were hard worked and had been promised an increase of pay. From no part of the United Kingdom had more complaints been received as to the inadequacy of the scale of promotion for the telegraph staff than from, not only Dublin, but from the Provincial offices throughout Ireland; and there was scarcely a telegraphist who would not materially benefit, both with regard to immediate pay and promotion, by the scheme which came into operation last year. This Vote was to give effect to that scheme, and if the hon. Members succeeded in stopping this Estimate the persons who would suffer would be those telegraphists who had for some time past been inadequately paid, and who had now a fair prospect of promotion. He, therefore, hoped the hon. Member 148 would not prevent the Vote being taken.
§ MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he thought the argument of the right hon. Gentleman would be an argument against opposing any Vote, because no Vote could be postponed without causing a delay in payment to some officials who had done very good work. This was a very important question, and one upon which he thought some answer should have been given. The question was, were telegrams placed under the same conditions as private correspondence? Were they open to invasion in the same way as letters? He thought this Vote ought not to be allowed to pass until those questions were answered.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONI trust this Motion may be withdrawn think my right hon. Friend has shown that this is scarcely the proper time at which to raise opposition. My right hon. Friend is not entitled to give the Committee any information as to how the Secretary of State has acted under the powers of the Act. I do not know, and I cannot say, what is the power of the Secretary of State to give information on this subject to the Committee; but what I can undertake is to say that hon. Members can renew this discussion on the Report. I think it is somewhat unreasonable at this time, when this Vote has practically been voted by the Committee, to raise objections which can be raised in other ways.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, he could not understand when the proper time for raising this question would be if it was not now. He understood the Constitutional maxim to be that grievances should properly be brought up in Supply for redress. He had simply asked a question, and the noble Marquess then said he doubted whether the Secretary of State would be in a position to give any information; but was it not obvious that the Secretary of State had made no secret of the exercise of his powers in regard to correspondence? The Secretary of State had refused to give particulars as to individuals, or as to what papers he had opened; but he made no secret of the fact that he was using and exercising the power confided to him and was generally opening correspondence. He, therefore, failed to see why, if there was no secrecy as to letters, there should be secrecy on the subject 149 of telegrams. He could not see any relevancy in the reply of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington)—namely, that his Question should be addressed to the Secretary of State; and he also could not attach any importance to the argument that payment would be delayed. The Government could bring the matter up on Monday, and he could not think that any persons would be materially injured by a two-days' delay. He must certainly press on the Government his claim to have an answer to these questions. He knew it was idle to protest against the use of arbitrary powers; but he wanted to know under what conditions people were living in Ireland—whether Irish telegrams were being opened? and he could not postpone that question for the convenience of any class of officials.
§ MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he wished to know whether any portion of this Vote was applied to the distribution of pamphlets setting forth the advantages to young men of entering the Army? There was a strange incongruity in a Department devoted to the internal duties of the country undertaking this.
§ MR. ILLINGWORTHadded that the Vote was not strictly confined to telegrams; and he wished to know whether any part of it was devoted to the distribution of this information?
§ MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, this matter of the telegrams was a very important and interesting question; and the Irish Members wanted to know what had happened to their telegrams. An instance had been mentioned a few nights ago in which a little school-girl's religious pictures had been taken out of a letter, and in the hurry of closing the letter again some other person's bank book was placed in it. They knew what had happened to their letters; and was it too much to ask that some little light should be thrown on the question whether their telegrams were rifled and overhauled as their letters were? The Postmaster General could end the matter very simply. Did he plead ignorance of the matter? If he did not plead ignorance, then let him say he knew but would not tell; and then they must take their own course. The right hon. Gentleman had not given any intelligible answer to this simple question— 150 whether it was or was not true that private telegrams were made known; that the secrecy of telegrams was violated, and their contents made known to persons appointed by the Government? It was a simple matter of "yes" or "no," and they were entitled to have an answer one way or the other.
§ MR. GRAYsaid, he regarded this as a matter of the most urgent importance, for it was rumoured that the Government had in contemplation the acquisition of the Telephone Companies' work. One of the difficulties which occurred to many people with regard to the original acquisition of the Telegraphs was that the Government might violate the telegrams in a way which the silence of the right hon. Gentleman would indicate they were now doing; and probably, if there was any proposal to acquire the Telephones, that might come on before hon. Members were able to raise this question in a formal manner. The violation of the secrecy of telegrams was, in one respect, far more serious than the opening of letters, because it was necessary to have the whole body of telegraphists acting as spies, and collectors of what they might deem information suitable for the purposes of the Chief Secretary, and for submission to the Home Secretary. But in the case of letters a warrant might be issued for the opening of one letter. That was the intention of the Act; but by a juggle of words the word "warrant" was interpreted as an authority to the Home Secretary to open all letters. The Home Secretary could not, however, do the same with regard to telegrams. In regard to them, he must direct the Postmasters or Telegraphic Superintendents to look out for all telegrams that might read suspicious, and forward them to him. Therefore, there was no secrecy; and it was clear from the reticence of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fawcett) that the practice did exist. He was sure that, from the views the right hon. Gentleman held, he must regard such a practice as detestable, and that he would be only too anxious to repudiate it if he could. The right hon. Gentleman, therefore, stood in the anomalous position of having to act as the tool of some other Government Department in carrying out such work as that. If he could, the right hon. Gentleman would not have hesitated for a single moment in re- 151 pudiating such a base and ignoble practice.
§ MR. FAWCETTobserved, that the Home Secretary had no idea that this matter would be raised now or he would have been in his place; but the question could be put to him on Monday before the Report on this Vote was taken, and if hon. Members were not satisfied with his answer they could raise the question upon Report. He could assure the hon. Member (Mr. Gray) that, so far as he was aware, the Government had no intention of buying up the Telephone Companies; and, at any rate, if any such idea was entertained, as long as he was at the Post Office the public would have ample warning of the intention. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth), the expenses of circulating the pamphlet respecting the advantages of joining the Army were borne by the War Office.
§ MR. GRAYsaid, he could not understand the contention that the Homo Secretary was the proper person to put this question to. He could be asked if he had issued certain warrants; but the Postmaster General was in charge of the Telegraphs, and he was the person to be asked whether in obedience to warrants he was in the habit of violating telegrams intrusted to his charge? The Home Secretary might receive the telegrams, but it was the Postmaster General who directed them to be copied and sent to the Home Secretary, and the right hon. Gentleman could not shift his responsibility. Hon. Members knew the opinions which the right hon. Gentleman held when he occupied a familiar seat on this side of the House; and if he now, in consequence of the change in his position, had become an instrument of a system of espionage such as was suspected, he should not shift the responsibility on to the shoulders of the Home Secretary. He must be prepared to take the responsibility upon his own shoulders, and he was the person to be asked. If he answered in the affirmative, then they could ask a question of the Home Secretary as to the justification either in law or in public policy for his action; but they were entitled to ask the Postmaster General whether the telegrams in his charge were, or were not, respected? Of course he could answer the question, or evade it, as he was now doing.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONI am sure my right hon. Friend seeks to shirk no responsibility; but the fact is that the responsible exercise of these powers rests with the Home Secretary. My right hon. Friend would not be justified in stating whether the power has been exercised or not. I do not know what power the Home Secretary may have for giving information; but, certainly, my right hon. Friend the Postmaster General would not be justified in giving information which, whether affirmative or negative, might be equally injurious to the Public Service. My right hon. Friend is most anxious to give any information he can give consistently with his duty; but considering that it is the Secretary of State, and not the Postmaster General, who is responsible, my right hon. Friend would not be justified in giving any information.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, that as this was practically an admission that the trick was done, he would give his hon. Friend (Mr. Gray) some information as to how it was done, his information having been supplied by an official in Dublin. In October last, when the famous raid was made on the Land League, the Chief Secretary caused a private wire to be taken into his own office, either in the Irish Office or in Dublin Castle, and he had a telegraph clerk there who "tapped" all the communications reaching Dublin. The Chief Secretary had them transcribed in his office, and so, without putting the Postmaster General to the disagreeable necessity of answering warrants, the Chief Secretary had all the telegrams transmitted in Ireland brought under his eyes through the medium of the telegraph clerk. The Committee would therefore see that there was not that difficulty as to warrants which the right hon. Gentleman had suggested.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, there was not a particle of foundation for this statement. Just as the hon. Member (Mr. Gray) had a direct wire into his own Freeman office in Dublin from London, so there was a direct wire from the Irish Office in London to Dublin Castle. It was a private wire and "tapped" no other wire, carrying only messages sent over it.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he had his information on this subject from a gentleman to whom he was inclined to give as 153 much credence as to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. [Several hon. MEMBERS: Name, name!] They were not in the habit of themselves getting names in that House.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, he could come to no other conclusion than that the secrecy of the Telegraph Department was being violated. He had no doubt, from the frank character of the Postmaster General, that if that were not the case he would have said so; but would he stand up and say it was his duty to violate telegrams in obedience to the warrant of the Home Secretary, as the noble Marquess had put it? It was most discreditable to a civilized Government that the right hon. Gentleman should be put in such a position; and, from his knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman's character, he must express some sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman. This was such a discreditable matter that he must support this Motion and any subsequent Motion.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 8; Noes 74: Majority 66.—(Div. List, No. 36.)
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, what he and his hon. Friends wanted was an answer such as he knew it would be the inclination of the right hon. Gentleman to give. Was this system applied to telegrams as well as to letters? Had the Government really entered upon that system, so long unknown in this country, of violating the privacy of telegrams as well as letters, in order to get at what they supposed political secrets? That was a system which, when practised in other countries, had been regarded by all right-minded men here with loathing and detestation. They wanted to know whether that system prevailed, and in order to give the Government a chance of answering the question in the most direct manner, he would move that Progress be reported.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Justin M'Carthy.)
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he could understand the feeling of hon. Members opposite; but he would ask them whether they thought it right to 154 call upon the Postmaster General to do a thing which the noble Marquess had stated distinctly in this House the right hon. Gentleman would not be justified in doing? It was hard to call upon the right hon. Gentleman to do what was clearly not his duty; and he would suggest the consideration whether it would not be better if hon. Members opposite allowed this Vote to be taken, and then on the Report make what attack they liked? The Home Secretary was dearly the person responsible in this matter.
§ MR. LEAMYsaid, he thought it curious that the noble Marquess should state that it would be unjustifiable of the Postmaster General to give this information, and it was also a little strange that the noble Marquess himself could not give it. Did the Postmaster General say he could justifiably give the information or not? What was his opinion? What was the information sought? It was not, as he understood, at the present moment whether the secrecy of telegrams was violated, but whether the Home Secretary could by his warrant direct that the contents of telegrams should be given to him, in order that he might be made acquainted with the contents of telegrams as well as letters. That was a very simple question.
§ MR. FAWCETTsaid, if the question which had been previously put was that which had just been asked, he was sorry he had not answered it. He believed it was a legal question which should be addressed to the Law Officers; but, as he understood, telegrams were in the same position with regard to warrants as were letters.
§ MR. REDMONDsaid, that that was not the question which the Irish Members desired to have answered. They were asked to vote certain public money in support of a Public Department. They wanted to know whether, in the conduct of that Public Department, certain things were done which, to their minds, were entirely unjustifiable? If the conduct they reprobated, and which he presumed the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General was ashamed of, was really carried on in the Department, then they were of opinion that they would not be justified in voting this money. Therefore, they desired to have an. answer from the right hon. Gentle- 155 man to that question, and simply "Yes" or "No" would be sufficient. Was the right hon. Gentleman, in obedience to a warrant, in the habit of violating the secrecy of the Post Office telegrams? Unless the right hon. Gentleman gave a candid answer to that question, he (Mr. Redmond) did not think the Committee would be justified in voting the money now asked for. The Committee were asked to pay money for the support of the Department; but they would not be justified in voting it until they had that question clearly and distinctly answered. On the contrary, they would be justified in using every Form of the House in order to oppose the Vote.
§ MR. GRAYsaid, he wished to explain why, while he felt strongly with his hon. Friends that they would be justified in using to the utmost the Forms of the House in order to get a reply to the question which had been put to the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General, he did not feel it his duty to take any part in any further division, if a further division was challenged. He thought that the question addressed to the right hon. Gentleman was a perfectly legitimate one; but he could not forget that the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington)—who, in the absence of the Prime Minister, was the Leader of the House—had distinctly expressed an opinion that the right hon. Gentleman could not give the information for which he was asked. The Irish Members should also recollect that they could not expect at that hour of the morning that any observations they made would be reported in the public Press. Nor could they expect, by dint of argument alone, to produce any beneficial effect. He thought, therefore, that they ought not to persevere any further. They had already, as far as their power extended, entered their protest in the matter; and what they should do at this particular time, finding that they were not able to raise in any effective manner this question of government of espionage, was to consider the position in which they might be placed by persistent divisions in reference to the discussion of the Resolutions which had been introduced in regard to the clôture. ["No!" from the Irish Members.] At any rate, that was his opinion, and he was not inclined to help the Government or strengthen their position by continuing now to divide upon 156 the question of reporting Progress. He thought the proper course would be to put on the Paper forthwith a specific Question to the Home Secretary, so that the matter might be raised on an early day at a time when it could be brought forward and properly discussed. If the right hon. Gentleman refused to give an explicit answer, then a distinct question might be raised upon it by moving the adjournment of the House. That would be an issue which the public would understand. It would bring the whole matter under the attention of the public; whereas, by persevering in taking a division now, the Irish Party would be placed in a very questionable position. He did not see that any good end would be attained by the course now being taken; and he, for one, should simply retire and take no further part in it.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, he could not share the opinion of his hon. Friend the Member for the County of Carlow (Mr. Gray). He did not think the measure of success which the Government were likely to obtain in reference to the clôture would be affected by anything the Irish Members could do in regard to this Vote. Her Majesty's Ministers unfortunately possessed the means of effecting their will in regard to the clôture or coercion, or anything else which they made part of their programme; and, therefore, he did not think the course of the Irish Members should be affected by any consideration which might appertain to the clôture. Perhaps it would be useful to lay again before the Committee, briefly and clearly, the position which he (Mr. Sexton) and his hon. Friends took up upon this question. The question he asked was this—whether a warrant of the Home Secretary ordering the violation of the secrecy of the Post Office telegrams was at present in operation in the Post Office Department; whether the telegrams received were liable to be copied and laid before the right hon. Gentleman or any other Member of the Government outside the Post Office Department? That was the question they desired to put. They admitted that a statutory power rested with the Home Secretary, and that he had a legal power to do this if he thought proper. They raised no question upon that head. In the second place they did not raise the question for the purpose of any conflict, or with 157 any ulterior view of bringing about a conflict in the Committee, because they had long since made up their minds that the exercise of the powers possessed by the Government in an arbitrary manner was a matter over which they had no control. The only object they had in asking the question was the ascertainment of a fact, and not for the purpose of raising any conflict. Were they, under such circumstances, to be told that they had not the right to expect an answer to the question. The hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) said that after the declaration of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) it was impossible for the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General to answer the question. The hon. Baronet took a more severe view of the position of the right hon. Gentleman than he (Mr. Sexton) would have expected. The matter was not governed by any declaration or form of apology made on behalf of the Postmaster General. The Irish Members asked the right hon. Gentleman whether a certain thing was taking place in his Department—the Department of which the right hon. Gentleman was the Constitutional head—and his hon. Friend the Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) advised them to ask somebody altogether outside the Department. Now, it was obviously plain, in regard to the Department of which the right hon. Gentleman was the supreme head, according to the Constitution, that the right hon. Gentleman was himself the Minister, and that he was the proper person to answer the question, and no one else. He believed that on reflection the right hon. Gentleman would see that it was an evasion—and an unworthy evasion—to tell him (Mr. Sexton) to ask another Minister what was done in his own Department; and he failed to see why the Irish Members should not pursue their protest by every means in their power.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he thought it was useless to discuss the question any further. As the hon. Gentleman stated that his only object was not to enter into any conflict as to the exercise of this power, but merely to obtain information, he (the Marquess of Hartington) would venture to point out that a way had been suggested by which the hon. Member could obtain the information he desired—namely, by putting 158 a Question to the Minister, who would either answer it or decline to do so. A Question could be put to the Home Secretary on Monday; and when the Report of Supply was brought up, the contest, if necessary, could be renewed. The information which the hon. Gentleman desired to obtain could certainly not be gained by the course now being pursued.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, there was some point in the last remark of the noble Marquess. It was a point, however, which was conspicuously absent from the previous speeches delivered from the Treasury Bench. He (Mr. Sexton) was perfectly sincere in saying that he had no desire to force a conflict. He simply desired to know what the fact was, and he had no objection to postpone the further consideration of the matter until the Report was brought up. He must, however, be allowed to say that, when hon. Members accepted the proposal of the Government to postpone the consideration of any particular question until the bringing up of the Report, their confidence was seldom repaid by the treatment they subsequently received from the Treasury Bench.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ MR. GRAYwished to say a word or two upon the general question before the Vote was agreed to. The Postmaster General had stated that a considerable amount of this Vote would go towards the relief of the Irish telegraph clerks; and the right hon. Gentleman had also stated in regard to the previous Vote that the principal part of it went to Ireland. He (Mr. Gray) was quite aware that the Irish telegraph clerks complained bitterly of their treatment. They were equally skilled, and did an equal amount of work as the telegraph clerks, either in London or the other great centres of England, such as Manchester, Liverpool, or Birmingham; but, nevertheless, they did not receive an equal amount of pay. He did not profess to know anything in regard to the mechanical appliances of telegraphing; but it certainly appeared to him that those who received or transmitted a message at one end of a wire must be equally as skilled as those who received or transmitted a message at the other end, and that they were entitled to 159 equal consideration in regard to remuneration. The clerks employed in London were paid at a much higher rate than other clerks. He did not complain of that. Everybody in London was paid at a higher rate than anywhere else; but he did not see why the clerks in Manchester should be paid on a higher scale than those in Dublin. The expense of living was quite as high in Dublin as in Manchester, or Glasgow, or elsewhere; and the skill of the telegraphists was quite as great. He hoped that he might interpret the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General to be an intimation that the existing inequalities were about to be remedied.
§ MR. FAWCETTsaid, he certainly thought that when the hon. Gentleman saw the classification he would perceive that no body of telegraphists would benefit by it more than the telegraph clerks in Ireland. There would be, in future, very little difference between the position of the telegraphists in Manchester and in Dublin; and the improvement that would be effected in the condition of the clerks in. Dublin would be very great indeed.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next;
§ Committee to sit again upon Monday next.