MR. O'DONNELL said, the complaint in this matter was, that a Government Department in Dublin, in order to defeat Dublin workmen, first tried to import labour from England and Scotland, and, failing that, had exported the Dublin work of the Government to England and Scotland. The Dublin printing of the Government was now being done in Edinburgh, and that course had been adopted for the purpose of saving the Dublin Department the necessity of yielding to the just demands of the printers. Of course, to a certain extent, it was quite right that an employer should go to a far distance for labour in order to counteract what he considered to be an unfair combination; but in this case the question arose as to what was, and what was not, an unfair combination? The charge against the Government Printing Office in Dublin was this that whereas the printers, who had only asked for an advance of wages once before in the course of half-acentury, and who, upon this occasion, had only asked for an increase of 28. aweek on the establishment wages and 6 or 7 per cent upon piece-work, the Government Department, backed by the influence of the Stationery Office, first tried to defeat that very moderate demand by the importation of workmen, and, failing that, they had the work "jobbed out" at Edinburgh. He was informed that one of the reasons why the work could be done cheaply at Edinburgh, and thus the opposition of the Dublin printers easily defied, was that in Edinburgh the duty was being performed by females. Female printers were doing this work at a cheap rate, and the regular printers of Dublin were thrust out of employment in this unfair manner. Undoubtedly, labour had its duties, but so, also, had capital; and there ought to be some strong reasons shown before the Irish Government printing was taken out of the hands of the Irish workmen, and handed over to females in England and Scotland. He thought this a very serious question, and he was sorry to see the Government did not appear to be previously aware of what had been taking place. sible for a private Member to find out | Ireland, and he must say he did his work what he wanted to know. admirably. There was recently a strike in Dublin, on the refusal of an application for an advance of wages to the printers. There were other printing offices besides that of the Government in the city, and he believed the proprietors of most of these-and especially the newspaper proprietors-conceded the demands of their men; and it was only right to say that even now, with this increase, the wages of printers in Dublin were less than those given to similar workmen in England and Scotland. The point before the Committee was this-Mr. Thom had a monopoly given him by the Government of this extensive printing; and while he ought to be protected against unfair competition, on the other hand the Secretary to the Treasury ought to take care that the monopoly which was given to that gentleman was not used to oppress the people whom he employed. If the Secretary to the Treasury would say he would look into the matter and take it up in a right spirit-which he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) was sure he would do if he took it up at all-something might be done. It certainly was not right that printing, which the Government contracted to have done in Dublin, should be taken by the contractor to be executed in Edinburgh, unless there be some very strong reason for such a course being pursued. It was clear that the attention of the Government had not yet been called to the matter, and he hoped they would now look into it. Mr. Thom's labours in the cause of everything that was good in Ireland were so great, and the extraordinary volumes of statistics which he produced entirely by his own exertions were so valuable, that he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) was most unwilling to say anything, or to take any course, which should injure him. But, at the same time, he thought the Secretary to the Treasury ought to look into the matter, and see that the printing should really be done in Dublin, when it could be executed there on fair terms. He would not say a word against Mr. Thom, who richly deserved the support of that House for all he had done in the way of facilitating legislation by the admirable statistics he had compiled; but, at the same time, he must not be allowed to over-ride poor people by the great weight given him in consequence of his MR. MITCHELL HENRY said, Mr. Thom had a very lucrative contract for the publication of Government papers in having this monopoly from the Govern ment. SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON said, he agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken as to the admirable work which Mr. Thom performed. As to the direct salary which he received, it appeared in the Estimates-namely, £100-and that was paid for the assistance he rendered in editing The Dublin Gazette. That sum, he believed, represented the whole of the Government salary which was paid to Mr. Thom; and, considering his services, he did not regard that as an extravagant sum. With reference to the question of printing, it was not his wish in any way to injure the trade; but the Governbe ment required certain work to speedily done, and, owing to the strike, Mr. Thom seemed to consider the best plan to adopt was to have it executed in other places. However, at the request of one or two hon. Gentlemen, he would consent to look into the matter. MR. PARNELL said, the Secretary to the Treasury was mistaken if he supposed his attention had not been directed to this subject before, because his hon. Friend the Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) alluded to it on Monday night. True, he did not do so at any length, and probably he did not make any impression upon the hon. Baronet; but as the hon. Baronet had been kind enough to say that he would look into the question, he (Mr. Parnell) would not persevere in his opposition to the Vote on that ground. With regard to the question itself, it was quite competent for the Committee to say, if contracts for printing to be performed in Dublin were entered into, that the work should not be sent by the contractor to be executed in Edinburgh or Glasgow, or elsewhere, and especially on so small a reason that the men had asked for an advance to the extent of 4s. a-week. There was no such emergency in getting out the work as the hon. Baronet seemed to think. The printing had only been put out because Mr. Thom said "I will put down this strike; I will use the power and authority which the very lucrative Government contract I hold will enable me to use; I will enter upon this contest, and I will put down this demand from the men.' He (Mr. Parnell) hoped the hon. Baronet would carefully look into the whole question. MR. T. CAVE said, he must protest against the new doctrine sought to be laid down by the hon. Member for Meath. If a contractor obtained a contract from that House to execute printing at a price, he was entitled-always supposing he was fair and reasonable-to get his work done as cheaply and as well as he could. He was sorry that the printers of Dublin had quarrelled with their master; but, at the same time, that was no reason in the world for laying down the doctrinewhich would work most mischievously— that a contractor in that country or this had not a perfect right to get his work done as cheaply as he could. MR. PARNELL said, the House had laid down an entirely different principle. The House had decided that the printing referring to Scotland should be done in Edinburgh; that that referring to Ireland should be done in Dublin; and that that referring to England should be done in London. He boldly asserted that, because he saw in the Vote separate and distinct items for printing in Ireland, Scotland, and England. If he had not recognized that principle, he should not have adopted the course he had; or, inasmuch as if they went upon the general principle of getting work done in the cheapest way, they would put all the printing together and have a contract for the lot. Then they would have the work executed in the cheapest place they could. Glasgow printer could do the printing cheaper than anyone else, by all means let the House of Commons, if it desired, give him the work. But, in this instance, the House of Commons had not chosen to do that, the Vote being presented in an entirely different way; and as long as they appeared in that shape, and a Dublin contractor sent his work to Scotland, he (Mr. Parnell) would protest against it. If a MR. SULLIVAN said, both the hon. Gentlemen who had last spoken were in the wrong. There was no contract, in the ordinary sense of the word, in this case, and that was precisely the error into which the two last speakers had fallen. While being called a contractor, Mr. Thom was not put into competition with anyone. The facts of the matter before the Committee were these:-The Dublin printers thought fit to require the masters in that City to raise their wages. Of course, they had a perfect right so to act; and he must remind the Committee that while some did not submit to the compulsion others did. Mr. Thom who, on a previous occasion, had thoroughly kept himself clear from all connection with the Printers' Association, and who opposed that Society successfully, would not agree to the terms of the men as to an increase of wages. That being so, he (Mr. Sullivan) regretted that the matter had been brought before the Committee that night. He considered it would be a deadly blow given to the printers of Ireland if hon. Members propounded on the floor of that House that the work could be done in Edinburgh cheaper than in Dublin; because it would put the printers of Dublin in the odious position of having driven the trade from the City. That was why he deplored such a discussion being raised. He hoped the present difficulty would be adjusted, and he believed it might be by the display of a little kindliness on each side. MR. MITCHELL HENRY said, it was a fact within his own knowledge that there had been very great delay in printing documents which ought to be produced in Dublin in consequence of the copy having to be sent to Scotland. One reason why the Government had printers in London, Dublin, and Edinburgh, was that there were documents peculiar to each country which required to be got on with at short notice. The Government printing in Ireland was done in Dublin for that reason; and if the Government printer for Ireland, as a rule, had his work done out of the Irish capital, of course there would be great inconvenience and delay. For his part, he was quite content with the answer of the Secretary to the Treasury-that he would inquire into the matter. At present, it was provided that the Irish printing should be done in Dublin, for the sake of convenience and expedition; and unless it was done in that city, Parliament must alter the system under which the work was given to the contractor. He (Mr. Mitchell Henry) made every allowance for Mr. Thom; and he regretted the delay occasioned in the execution of work in consequence of his not seeing his way to do what the other masters had done. MR. O'DONNELL, in answer to the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan), who objected to the fact of the Dublin work being sent to Scotland being stated on the floor of that House, said the matter had been fully ventilated before it was mentioned in debate. The Dublin printers had clearly stated the facts in a Memorial they had sent round to Members of Parliament, and in their trade organ, The Irish Artizan. They themselves said that work was being done in Edinburgh which ought to be done in Dublin; and, consequently, there was not the slightest ground for saying that harm had been done, or was likely to be done, to the interests of the Irish printers, by referring to the matter in that House. The statement of the hon. and learned Member for Louth, as to the previous collision between Mr. Thom and his men, had far from weakened the cause of the men. Mr. Thom had first come in contact with the men by refusing to have any belonging to a society in his office; and now, when they asked for a slight increase of wages, he made use of his immense resources, and “jobbed" the work out at Edinburgh. MR. BIGGAR said, it was quite clear that Mr. Thom, rather than submit to an advance of wages, as other masters had, would rather "job" his work out at Edinburgh. He-Mr. Thom-could afford to submit to a temporary loss, in order to force his employés to come to his terms. The argument of the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. T. Cave), that the House should allow the work to be done in any place the parties chose, would, of course, be good if the work were open to competition, and if the papers ordered to be printed in Ireland were such as did not require to be produced in a certain time. In this case, Mr. Thom was not a contractor. He obtained whatever he charged on the understanding that the printing should be supplied and be in Members' hands in a definite time. He thought it only reasonable that Mr. Thom should be asked to give the same rate of wages as his neighbours, and nothing more was asked. MR. MACDONALD observed, that the salary of the editor of The London Gazette began with £600 a-year, with a maximum of £800; that the firstclass clerks began on £300, and rose to £400 a-year; that the second-class clerks began with £200, and rose to £300 a-year; and that third-class 63 Supply-Civil {COMMONS} clerks began with £100 a-year, and | a brand new speech. ["No, no!" "Hear, SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON said, the hon. Member fell into a mistake in imagining that the clerks to whom he referred were of the same grade as the men employed in the printing office of The Gazette. Those clerks were civil servants, having increases to their salary in the same way as those employed in the Foreign or Home Offices, or other Departments. Their salaries rose by given increments each year, until the maximum was reached. MR. MELLOR asked, if that increment occurred in all those Departments without reference to the qualifications of the official servant? because, if so, he considered such a principle one of the worst ever introduced. speeches were reported in Hansard which were certainly not delivered in that House. He had listened to speeches in that House, and he had read entirely different versions of them afterwards in Hansard. It was the custom of Mr. Hansard to report all speeches in the third person, with the exception of those delivered by Ministers. Well, he had seen speeches in Hansard relating to Irish questions delivered by Gentlemen who were not Ministers, and yet they were in the first person singular. He could not believe that those speeches, produced in this most minute way, were those delivered when the subject was under discussion. Nor could he believe that Mr. Hansard supplied proofs of some speeches at all in the form in which they were published. He had no fault to find with the proofs which Mr. Hansard sent round. He (Mr. Parnell) rarely made any corrections in those sent to him. Last Session he only had to make two or three unimportant ones, and this Session only one or two. But what he had to suggest was, that any correction which a Member made in the proof of his speech, except it should be merely a grammatical error, should appear, not in the body of the speech, but as a foot-note appended to that speech. By that plan, they would be able to see what Mr. Hansard's ideas really were as to the speeches of Members, and they would read his report, and not the versions of their utterances as supplied by hon. Members themselves. He thought it exceedingly important, that whatever alterations or corrections Members desired to make in their speeches should be appended as footnotes to those speeches, or, otherwise, no one would know what they were paying MR. PARNELL said, he wished to for. Practically, if the present system make a suggestion to the hon. Baronet continued, they would be paying to the Secretary to the Treasury with re-enable Members to alter or do what they ference to the £3,000 to be voted for liked with their speeches. Hansard's Debates, as he was unable to do so on Monday night when the subject was under discussion. At present, Mr. Hansard sent round proofs to Members of the House, and they were entitled to make any corrections they pleased. They were entitled to disregard the proofs entirely, and give their own version of the speeches which they had made. This really meant that a Member could supply SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON said, the increment was supposed to represent the knowledge a clerk obtained in the time he had served. He came in as a probationery clerk at £90 a-year, after having passed the Civil Service examination, and he had increases of £10, or £15, or £20 a-year as time went on, and these advances represented the knowledge he was supposed to have acquired during the time he had been in the service. MR. MITCHELL HENRY said, his hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) could not expect to have all his speeches reported at length in Hansard, for if he did he would require a Hansard to himself. He thought his hon. Friend had not read Hansard very carefully, or he would have seen that the speeches which were supplied by Members in the first person were always distinguished by an asterisk, to show that they had | be permitted unless it were inserted in been so supplied. All who had sat in italics, or in brackets, to indicate that it that House for any length of time must was an alteration. Unless that were remember the remonstrances which had done, what was the use of referring to been urged against the Vote for Hansard's Hansard in order to quote the exact Debates, on the ground that Mr. Hansard words which were used? Of course, the refused to alter speeches in any manner exact words employed upon such a suba Member desired. What he (Mr. Mitchell ject as the Eastern Question were of Henry) believed to be the general rule great importance, and in a permanent was this-such alterations in a report record of what occurred on other subas were necessary, and within fair and jects the exact words used were equally reasonable bounds, were allowed; but essential. Unless the corrections or alMr. Hansard felt himself under terations of hon. Members were plainly moral responsibility to the House of distinguished from the report, the preCommons not to permit those exten- sent system of reporting speeches would sive alterations which his hon. Friend be of no advantage. What ought to be the Member for Meath had spoken of. done was this-to say to Mr. HansardBefore he sat down, he wished to "Here is a certain sum to do the best remark that Mr. Hansard had informed you can with, but you are either to give him that the most careful speakers-and a good report or none at all." Either those most careful of the honour of the the work should be properly done, or House of Commons and of the time of the the House should be in no way responcountry-were precisely the gentlemen sible for it. At present, he thought the who took the most pains to correct their reports carried no official weight with speeches. The Prime Minister (the Earl them. of Beaconsfield) corrected his speeches very carefully for Hansard; the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) had always done so; and he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) remembered the right hon. Gentleman speaking in the House of the hard task he found it to correct his speeches for the printer. He (Mr. Mitchell Henry) ventured, therefore, to suggest to his hon. Friend the Member for Meath that perhaps he might with advantage devote some portion of his own time to correcting those of his speeches which were reported. His doing so might possibly trench on the time which he now had for speaking in the House; but, at any rate, by his so acting posterity would have a better opportunity of judging of the quality of his utterances than would otherwise be afforded. MR. BIGGAR said, the great value of Hansard's Debates was to place on record the exact words uttered-especially by Ministers. He considered that Mr. Hansard ought to supply a first-rate report on being paid what was reasonable and fair for his labour. At present Mr. Hansard was paid too little for a good report, and too much for an incomplete one. He regarded the practice of supplying proofs for correction as most objectionable, and it certainly was a bad precedent for a Member to contribute his own speech. No alteration should VOL. COLX. [THIRD SERIES.] MR. J. COWEN had considered that this subject was disposed of on Monday. He thought the Gentlemen who passed this criticism upon Mr. Hansard had no practical grievance whatever. He would undertake to say-and he spoke with some knowledge of such duties-that it was impossible to conceive a man doing the work better or more fairly than Mr. Hansard did, considering the circumstances, considering the disadvantages, and considering the position in which he was placed. It was scarcely worth while prolonging a discussion on a subject which had already been under the consideration of the House; but he felt desirous, at least, of lodging his protest against the unjust condemnation of a gentleman to whom the House and the whole British nation were indebted, and who for over 40 years had conducted a very thankless and unprofitable work with great ability and much self-sacrifice. MR. PARNELL thought he had paid Mr. Hansard the highest compliment which he could possibly pay him. He did not say, as his hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had asserted, that he never took the trouble to correct the reports of his speeches. What he, in reality, said was, that Mr. Hansard's proofs of his observations in that House were so good, that he seldom or never found it neces D |