asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether he has read the Report of the Court which inquired into the circumstances attending the loss of the Carmona; whether he has considered that Report in connection with the evidence which was submitted to the Court, especially in regard to the stowage of the cargo; and, whether the Board of Trade propose to take any further steps in the matter?

Yes, Sir; I have read the Report in the case of the Carmona; but the Board of Trade have no power to review the evidence given to, or the decisions of, any Court of Inquiry. In the present ease, as the Court has finally reported that—

"There was no evidence before the Court to enable them to form an opinion of the cause of the loss of the vessel,"

and as no further evidence has been obtained, the Board of Trade do not propose to take any further steps in this particular case; but the question raised with regard to the shifting of iron cargoes is too important to be lost sight of.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether since the return of Langalibalele to Natal, definite arrangements have been made for that Chief's residence and support; and, whether the Governor has made any recent Report on the subject?

As to the definite arrangements for Langalibalele's return, I have nothing to add to the answer given to the hon. Member on the 11th of March. About two months ago a despatch was received from the Governor of Natal announcing that Langalibalele, with his family and attendants, having arrived on the 27th of April; and, pending the completion of; the preparations at Swart Kop, had been lodged in a block of buildings in the outskirts of Pietermaritzburg, where they were comfortable and satisfied with their accommodation and treatment.

This Vote is one which I cannot allow to be passed without entering a serious protest against it. The Veto for the Public Record Office includes the sum granted every year for the publication of certain historical documents that have been in course of publication now for many years. I find, among the details given here in a note, that the publication of the calendars and Public State documents commenced in the year 1857, and that up to the present day 191 volumes have been published. The original purpose for which this Vote was put upon the Estimates was to secure the publication of the State documents and calendars of the United Kingdom, and I shall be able to prove, if necessary, that for some years after the commencement of the publication the Vote was fairly distributed between the various parts of the United Kingdom. But I am afraid that the publication of the Irish Records has been gradually diminishing until, for at least two or three years past, no public record or State document has been published in Ireland at all, although the usual publications have been continued in England. I am afraid that there must have been some underhand or corrupt influence at work in the matter, for while 21 editors have been occupied on English Records, not a single editor is at present engaged on records relating to Ireland. The entire Vote is absorbed by the English work, and I ask for a full explanation of the matter from the Secretary to the Treasury.

I regret that I should not be able to make any satisfactory explanation to the hon. Member, unless I were to go into the details with which, however, I am not sufficiently acquainted. I know that the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) has taken a great interest in the publication of certain Irish Records, and I have already promised him that I will endeavour to make provision for the publication of some of them which I understand to be ready and to have been approved by the hon. Gentleman himself. Indeed, the publication is recommended not only by the hon. Member, but also by those in Ireland who have charge of the business. I can only regret that I cannot give the information as to the details of the work which the hon. Gentleman has asked for.

I am glad that the hon. Member opposite has called attention to this matter. The publication of the Irish Records is a matter of great importance to Ireland, and I hope that I before the next Estimates are produced steps will be taken for providing for their issue. English records are constantly published, although they are already accessible in some other form to the historical student. But there are in existence in Ireland a large number of valuable State documents and records which are not accessible, and which it is of the highest importance that the State should publish so that they may be rendered accessible, to all who are concerned in studying the history of the country. I may mention, in addition to other records, that there is in existence in connection with Christ Church Cathedral, a book containing a number of unpublished Acts of the Irish Parliament. Those documents are of the greatest possible interest, and contain information of the utmost value with reference to the past history of Ireland. I sincerely hope that sufficient funds will be devoted to the publication of these Irish Records, and that the Government will deal with the matter in a liberal spirit. I understand that there is an annual sum of £2,000 a-year voted for the publication of similar documents and records relating to England, and I think that at least £1,000 should be devoted to the publication of Irish Records.

I have no wish to contrast the importance of a large country like England with that of a small country like Ireland; but, at the same time, I am not prepared to subscribe to the doctrine that it is of less importance to spend money on historical investigations in Ireland than upon the publication of English Records. The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken has pointed out one fundamental difference between English and Irish Records. As a matter of fact, English documents are accessible to persons who like to search for them, whereas Irish Records are not. Now that the question has been raised, I think it is the duty of every Irish Member, and of every historical student, whatever his nationality may be, to urge on the Government the vast importance of inviting literary research in reference to Irish history. Nearly all the investigations into Irish history, and certainly all the investigations into Irish chronology, have been conducted not by Eng-glishmen or Irishmen, but by Germans; and I think it is in the highest degree discreditable to the English Exchequer that subjects which are fairly subjects for English investigation, should be allowed to remain in the hands of Germany. I do not know that my hon. Friend is quite right in saying that no money has been spent on Irish investigation, because I find, under Sub-heads B and C, that a sum of about £200 has been spent in. the examination of certain Irish documents. Now, I think that a very careful investigation into everything concerned with Irish history is necessary in order to correct the wilful or unintentional errors of Poole in his Irish History. It is a matter for much regret that Irish scholarship should be grudged even a small grant of the public money in this respect, seeing the large sums which have been spent in England and Scotland. I will not say that it has been money lavished or wasted, because I think it has been well spent; but what I say is that money has been more freely spent in similar work in England and Scotland than in Ireland. While I am alluding to this Vote, I must say that there appears to be a somewhat startling disproportion in the amount spent on the permanent staff and the sum spent in investigation. I find that the permanent staff cost £18,743, while in the publication of the calendars and documents themselves the sum of £2,580 only was spent. I hope the Secretary to the Treasury will be able to explain this large disproportion, which certainty does appear, at the first glance, to be very great.

I understand that the Secretary to the Treasury, in my temporary absence from the Committee, made some statement upon this subject, and in the course of which he intimated that he was unable to give any information in detail, because he had not got the figures. Now, there cannot be the slightest doubt that this Vote was originally taken for the publication of historical documents connected with, all parts of the Kingdom; and what I contend is, that there is a much stronger case for using the money for Ireland than for England. Let me take the matter as it stands. The calendars and volumes published in this series until recently stood as follows, the figures bringing the facts down to last year:—In the shape of calendars, 126 have been published for England, and 20 for Ireland, Journals and memorials are largely represented for England; there are no less than 176 for England and Scotland, and 8 only for Ireland. In the press, of both classes, there are 11 for Great Britain and 1 for Ireland; and awaiting publication, there are 11 for Great Britain and none for Ireland. That is the state of the figures; and it would appear that, whereas in previous years, up to a certain date, about 15 per cent of the money was given to Ireland, there is now a very limited amount indeed devoted to the publication of Irish State papers. Indeed, it would appear that some extraordinary or occult influence is at work, by which the money voted for this purpose is absorbed almost exclusively in England and Scotland—Ireland being deprived of its fair share of the grant. But these figures do not give a full representation of the real facts of the case. The fact is this—that so far from there being a strong ease for using the money in the preparation of historical records and documents in connection with England, there is an infinitely stronger case in regard to the history of Ireland. Anybody who will take up the catalogue of these publications in the Record Office will find that nearly the whole of the English publications, although undoubtedly of great interest, are mere reprints which have been put into a more convenient shape for the benefit of scholars. No doubt, that is a laudable object, and the money may be said to be applied to a useful purpose; but it is nothing as compared with the printing of documents of equal value which are at present only in manuscript, and of which there is, perhaps, but one copy in the world. I find that the documents which have been published in regard to Ireland have been largely, if not altogether, edited from manuscripts almost entirely unknown to learned men previously. For instance, Mr. Gilbert edited a number of documents relating to a treasonable conspiracy in Ireland in 1601, together with the contemporaneous history of the country at that time. It is a work of extraordinary interest; but only one copy existed in manuscript until the document was published under this Irish Vote. I have heard it stated that there are other documents of equal interest and importance actually awaiting publication, which have been edited by the same editor and by others. It seems to be monstrous that manuscripts of this kind should remain unpublished, while republications are going on which may be useful, no doubt, to English students, but which simply supply reprints of documents already published, such as the Chronicles of Matthews of Paris and others, all of which have been presented to the public in print more than once already, and can be readily obtained. There is a document mentioned by the late Sir Edward Sullivan, in connection with the death of More, which is of extraordinary value, but which is absolutely unknown to the historical student. These documents are contained in a manuscript book, of which there is only one copy, and probably there are not 10 men who are able to read it, seeing that, it is in Norman-Latin, with a large number of abbreviations, and it is only students of that period, and very experienced and learned students, who can make out the manuscript at all. Besides, it is exceedingly difficult to got men to edit records of this nature, however valuable they may be. O'Donovan and O'Curry died before their great work of editing the ancient laws of Ireland was completed. That is one of the most valuable works that exists in the whole civilized world, and I am afraid that it is now impossible to get the work completed at all. In many instances the money is voted to men who know nothing whatever of the work. The great difficulty is not so much to get the money as to get the men, and when we have the men it is shameful that we should allow them to waste their lives without utilizing their talents. I think I have made out an extremely strong case for some portion of this money being devoted to Ireland. I think I have shown that for the last three or four years there has been gross injustice done to Irish literature, and I trust that the Government will exhibit some readiness to undo that injustice, and to be generous for two or throe years to come. As to one of the books to which I have inferred, and which is, I believe, now ready, containing certain records connected with the ancient See of Dublin, I trust that means will be taken for putting it in the press as speedily as possible.

I have already intimated my willingness to inquire into the facts of the case, and it will be my endeavour to deal as fairly as I can with the applications which are laid before me. When the Estimates were under preparation last October, we gave to Ireland all that was asked for on that occasion. I am told, however, that there are many existing manuscripts which ought to be published, and I have already promised the hon. Member to institute an inquiry into the particular cases he has mentioned.

in rising to move the reduction of this Vote by the sum of£10,000, said: I wish it to be understood, at the outset, that I have not the slightest intention of casting any imputation upon the management of the Stationery Department, by Mr. Pigett, the Comptroller. I think there is evidence in his reports that he has made every effort to cut down unnecessary expenses, and to introduce economy into the Department; but he can go no further without the assistance of the Government and of this House. This Vote is for a very large sum—namely, £556,260, and I think there can be no doubt that a material saving may be made in it. It will be seen, under Sub-head E, that the printing for Public Departments cost £185,000, being an increase of £5,000 over last year, and of £9,100 for 1885–6. This, therefore, is obviously a rapidly increasing item, but no details are given of the expenditure. It is only stated that the Vote is for the Public Departments. In addition to the item for printing, the paper supplied to these Departments costs £120,000, as will be seen from Sub-head F; so that these two amounts come to £305,000, or considerably more than one-half of the total Vote. And, be it observed, that this printing is totally apart from Parliamentary printing, which comes under Sub-head J, and represents an expenditure of £70,000. Now, it does not appear that there is any efficient chock upon the printing for the Public Departments, and that being the ease, it is very evident that there must be great wastefulness in this branch of outlay. The Foreign Office alone gets rid of nearly £12,000 a-year in this way, an increase of more than £1,000 over the previous year. The Board of Trade cost £9,727 in 1S85-6, as against £7,779 the previous year, or an addition of nearly £2,000, besides £3,000 in connection with Mercantile, Marine, and in other forms. We are not informed how much is taken for it this year. The Patent Office and its belongings cost nearly £28,000, an addition of nearly £5,000. A mere glance at the Papers before the Committee will not throw the slightest light on the way in which this money is disbursed; but I find, on further examination, that there are over 300 offices supplied with stationery and printing, many of which may very well be left to take care of themselves. There is, for instance, a Department of "Polish Refugees' Agents," "The Liberated African Department," "The Pipe Office," "The Disembodied Militia," and so forth. Surely, if a disembodied Militiaman wants to use stationery, he ought to supply it for himself. In fact, the list of offices supplied at the public expense might be cut down by at least one-third, and the supply all round might probably be cut of? by at least one-half. Then the Parliamentary Papers under sub- head are estimated to cost £70,000. I have no hesitation in saying that it would be of great advantage to the House, and to the public, if this amount were greatly reduced. A largo part of it, under present arrangements, might as well be thrown outside into the Thames. One of the numerous penalties of being a Member of Parliament is the avalanche of Blue Books which is continually pouring upon one's head. No ordinary house will hold them; if you sell them, the proceeds do not go very far towards paying one's election expenses. Some of these books are very costly in production, they are often illustrated with coloured diagrams and expensive maps and drawings, und yet they remain quite unknown to the bulk of the people. The expense of producing them must be enormous, and out of all proportion to their value to the public. I think the Government might, with great propriety, decline more frequently than they do to produce those costly books at the public expense. They answer no other purpose as a rule than the gratification of an individual caprice. There is scarcely any public demand for Parliamentary Papers. According to the Auditor and Comptroller General, the cost of producing these papers in 1885–6 was £68,383, and the total sum realized by their sale was only £1,285. Acts of Parliament and other Papers are scattered about in an unnecessarily profuse and foolish manner. It is only justice to the Comptroller of the Stationery Department, Air. Pigott, to say that he has protested against this in the two reports he has issued, and that he has urged upon the Government the propriety of acting upon the recommendation of the Committee which inquired into the subject of making the distribution of these reports less objectionable than it is now. I am aware that some of these Papers have to be applied for, and are not issued generally; and I think that the Government might, with advantage, carry out that rule much further, and leave Members to apply for all documents without tumbling them into their houses whether they want them or not. There are special Reports printed of which the general public seldom hear, and I question the wisdom of printing them. The Exports of the Challenger expedition, for instance, have already cost the country £53,000, and very few copies indeed have been sold. They have value from a scientific point of view, no doubt; but they have been produced in a very extravagant and unbusiness-like manner, and they are not accessible to the general public. In regard to Acts of Parliament it appears from Mr. Pigott's first Report, issued in 1881, that "the free list," so to speak, was last drawn up in 1801, and he says—

"The municipal authorities of the "boroughs of Gatton and Dimwich—the latter a seaport of importance in the reign of Henry VIII., but now for many years almost entirely submerged—still appeal in the List as public functionaries for whoso use Acts of Parliament are supplied and paid for at the public expense."

He does not tell us in his second Report that the papers have been discontinued, or how they are delivered at the submerged port of Dunwich. Perhaps the First Lord of the Admiralty undertakes that service, and will be able to throw some light upon the matter. Obviously there is considerable room for saving money in this direction. And so there is in regard to the printing of Private Bills. I think there ought to be some judicious restrictions placed upon the privilege now accorded to every Member of having any Bill he chooses to introduce printed at the public expense. There was an immense crop of Bills introduced at the beginning of this Session, of which very few remain alive now, and. some of them were of enormous length. One of them forms a good thick volume of 115 pages which, I am told, would make an octavo volume in print of more than 300 pages. Nobody is likely to road it, except its illustrious author. I would rather not mention which Bill it was, because I do not wish to make it appear that I am attacking either one side of the House or the other. Then, again, there was another Bill of 111 pages, another of 60, and so on. Not one of these elaborate measures over had the slightest chance of receiving the attention of Parliament. I may say that among the more voluminous Bills were "The Companies Consolidation Bill," "the Parliamentary Elections Bill," & c. I will now glance at the salaries, some of which appear to be very high. I say nothing of the salary of the Comptroller who, considering his duties and responsibilities, is not over paid with £1,500 a-year. But there is an Assistant Comptroller at £800 a-year, three clerks receiving between them £1,650, one with £500, 12 receiving £4,147, and so on. There can be no doubt whatever that these clerks are all greatly over paid, taking the salaries paid by any mercantile house as a standard, And it must not be forgotten that in a mercantile house the clerks would not be entitled to large pensions as these Government clerks are, no matter how little they may have done to deserve it. Therefore, I think that the high salaries paid ought to be taken into consideration when the pensions are fixed. Then the Superintendent of Printing gets £550 a-year, undoubtedly a great prize in the printing trade. There is also a deputy assistant, with £500 a-year, and an Assistant Examiner of Printing with £225, 12 a-year, together with two examiners of printers accounts who receive £400 a-year each. It would puzzle anyone to explain what duties those functionaries perform. Some of them, I venture to say, hold sinecure offices. Then I ask the Committee to look at the entry on page 150 of £1,260 for porters, followed by another probable amount required for wages of porters and boys, £4,687. Surely that is a very large amount, very loosely and inadequately accounted for in these Estimates. Women are to be paid £80, and then men, women, and boys having been accounted for, there is a charge of £1,021 for certain mysterious nondescripts described as "others." What sort of "others" can these be, and what kind of service do they render the State for £1,000 a-year? All I ask the Government is, whether they cannot see their way to make a considerable reduction in the charge for printing for the Public Departments and for the paper used, which, together, represent an expenditure of £305,000 a-year. I believe that your own officer is in favour of reducing these charges for Parliamentary printing, he tells us there can be no question as to the value of the Reports made to the President of the Board of Trade upon the working of the Boiler Explosives Act of 1882. The Act requires that the Board shall cause oven such Report "to be made public in such manner as it thinks fit." Now, in the first place, the Reports are published separately as they are received, and I think that ought to answer every con ceivable purpose. The Comptroller ays—

"It is difficult to understand what further object is pained by afterwards collecting the reports and presenting them, in the form of a ponderous Blue Book, to Parliament; but since the passing of the Act three collections of the kind have already been presented, and a fourth f the series, containing 96 pages of letterpress and 111 lithographic illustrations, is now passing through the press."

What value they are it is impossible to conceive. They can only be sold as waste paper, or be allowed unnecessarily to fill up a room. No doubt the Reports relate to matters which involve the expenditure of millions of money; but we are told that if we wish to effect economy we must begin by looking at the sixpences. I believe there are a good many sixpences which might be saved in this Department, and I hope the Secretary to the Treasury will be able to give the Committee some assurance that the number of Blue Books issued will be considerably restricted in future. I would suggest not only that the distribution should be restricted, but that the cost of these books, which involve the production of expensive engravings, coloured prints, and so forth should be cut down, and at the same time that all the salaries should be overhauled with a view to reduction. These are the recommendations I wish to make, and I bog, in conclusion, to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £10,000.

I wish to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether still more real and effective control cannot be provided in connection with what is really the publishing department of the Government. At present, there does not appear to be any proper control or supervision in the department at all, and publications are sent out by the Government in a most unsatisfactory manner. The Comptroller might, I think, by judicious editing, do much to popularize the Government publications, and I think that in that way a good many of the publications issued might be rendered very useful. For instance, there are the Reports relating to colliery accidents, which contain information of considerable value to the districts where such accidents have occurred. If they were in the hands of a regular publishing firm, steps would surely be taken to make their contents known, and they would become of much greater value than they are now, under the supervision of the Comptroller. If these publications were in the hands of ordinary publishers—such as Macmillan or Cassells—I am satisfied that a great deal would be done to popularize them. If not, I think we might cut off a good deal of this expenditure altogether, seeing that it is entirely wasted, because what is done is not sufficiently made known. Let me take the case of the Report of the Commission on Technical Education. The Commissioners appointed to inquire into that subject have issued an exceedingly valuable Report; but the most important volume has been allowed to run out of print, and I believe there has been no attempt to reproduce it. That certainly would not have happened if the publication had been in the hands of an enterprising bookseller. The Comptroller, I dare say, know nothing whatever about the matter, and only allowed a limited number of copies to be issued. Let me take another instance. Last year, the Report of the "Accidents in Mines Commission," the Commissioner, having been at work for seven years or more, was printed. They published, inside their Report, an admirable summary of the evidence, together with their recommendations contained in about 15 or 20 pages. The Report itself, which was full of illustrations, cost 11s. 6d.; but although many of the miners who are most interested in it could not afford to pay that sum, they would gladly have purchased the summary, which might have been published separately at a cost of 2d. or 3d., and could have been circulated all over the mining districts. I asked one of the Government officials whether that could be done, and I was told that it was impossible. Therefore, I ventured to take up the work myself, and having privately printed the summary so that it might have been sold for a profit of 1½d., I have done the best I could to get it well circulated among miners; but I think that a work of that I kind ought to be done by the Government themselves through the instrumentality of a Department of this sort. They ought either to hand the work over to booksellers, who would make a good speculation out of it, to be published under reasonable control, or else the Comptroller ought to go into the subject thoroughly, with a view to popularize that part of our publications. I believe the Secretary to the Treasury fully recognizes the importance of the matter, and I am aware that the Report of the Depression of Trade Commission has been published, in a useful form, for 6d. That is quite a departure from the usual course, and as I am afraid the fact is very little known, I think something ought to be done to make it more widely known. I also think that with a little effort on the part of the Postmaster General arrangements might be made to hand over part of the windows at the post offices, so that it may be made known that useful publications of this kind are being issued from time to time. It is a work, however, in which the head of the Department ought to take the initiative; but I am satisfied that something ought to be done to make the heavy expense incurred in printing Reports of this nature really worth while. Cheap publications of this sort might be freely issued; and I think it should be the duty of some of the heads of the Departments to see how they may best be popularized and got into the hands of the public. That is a work which, as far as I can judge, the head of the Stationery Department might take in hand. I know that a good deal was said about the duties of the Office when the present Comptroller was appointed. I have no wish to allude to that matter further than to say that when a man receives £1,300 or £1,500 a-year, and is the head of a most important Department, he might do a coat deal for political education, in no Party sense at all, by helping to spread among the people information which it costs the country so much to get. I think that his attention ought to be drawn to the matter; and while I believe the present Secretary to the Treasury fully recognizes the force of these suggestions, I wish to press upon him their very great importance.

I should be very sorry to do anything to prevent the observance of strict economy in the administration of any public Department, and I certainly think there is plenty of room for economy in the Department now under discussion. At the same time, I should deprecate any hasty cutting down of our printing arrangements, although I should he glad to see the publications issued by the Government thoroughly supervized and edited. That there is a considerable amount of waste I think most hon. Members of this House will be prepared to admit; but I certainly cannot agree with the opinion which has been ex-pressed that the Parliamentary Reports, Hills, Blue Books, and other Papers issued by this House constitute so much waste paper. On the contrary, I think they contain a very valuable amount of information—so valuable, in my opinion, that I have done what I believe few other hon. Members have done—namely, gone through the whole of the publications issued by this House during the last two years. I know that it has been a somewhat labourious task; but I am able to say that I have not only gone through the Papers, but that I have made very considerable use of them. At the same time, I cannot help protesting against the way in which our Papers are issued. In many of them the same information is detailed over and over again, and I am sorry to say that very often the same information, obtained apparently from the same sources, does not always correspond in the different editions in which we find it. I think it is quite sufficient to issue for general circulation by means of a Blue Book the special information which it is considered desirable to present to the public; but it is not necessary that the same information should be published over and over again in a different form in the publications issued by this House. I did not happen to be in the House when the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Jennings) commenced his speech; but I understand that he made some observations in reference to the publication of Bills introduced by private Members, and suggested that they should be printed by the private Members who introduce them, instead of being printed at the public expense. Now, I would venture to ask whether, in many instances, these Private Bills have not paved the way for much of the useful legislation which has been passed by this House? With due deference to hon. Members on the other side, I be- lieve that within the last two years the Bills introduced by private Members have shown a considerable advance in education oven on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite themselves. I find that many excellent measures which were strongly deprecated two or three years ago by hon. Members on the other side have now been adopted by them, and that many of those hon. Members are now acting as a vanguard, and are engaged in educating their Party, leading them on to useful legislation, when the Government they support can see their way to adopt the measures submitted to them. I certainly wish that the Government could see their way to deal more freely with some of the Bills brought in by private Members.

Order, order!

I bow to your decision, Sir; but I think I may be allowed to say, with regard to the Bills introduced by private Members, that they are useful as indicating the views of hon. Members, and that they have considerable interest for the country. I venture to think that a number of the Bills which have been introduced here have been widely circulated among the constituencies, and they have materially helped to educate the people in every way. In regard to some of the more elaborate Reports which have been issued by this House from time to time, I must say I think something might be done to curtail the expense, which is often very considerable At the same time, I know there are great difficulties to be contended with. For instance, you must not put a power in the hands of any officer of a Public Department which will enable him to judge for himself what is to be left out of the evidence laid before a Commission or Committee. When an investigation has been conducted by a Royal Commission, or by a Select Committee of this House, I think the evidence laid before it should be published as it is. No doubt there are a number of the huge Blue Books, such as that upon technical education, and the Blue Book in regard to the Land Commission which, although, containing very valuable matter, are unnecessarily elaborate in their form, and something might be done to curtail their dimensions from time to time. I think, that a smaller number of copies of the expensive books might he printed with a supplementary issue containing- a separate digest of the evidence as a whole. Such a summary could be published at a cheap; rate together with the Report. I hope the time is not far distant when the House will be able to supervize the printing and publishing Departments of the Government, so as to curtail the expenses; but, at the same time, I hope that nothing will be done in the way of curtailment that would be likely to interfere with the full expression of opinion, called forth, in various ways, through the publication issued by the House. It is in order to preserve that full expression of public opinion that I think there should be no restriction as; to the nature of the information circulated to the public

I trust that Her Majesty's Government will take into consideration the suggestious which have been made by the hon. Member for the Rotherham Division of Yorkshire (Mr. A. H. Dyke Acland) in regard to the distribution of Reports, of great local interest, through the Post Offices. At the present moment, local booksellers will not take the trouble to procure them. Applications may be made over and over again, for copies of the publications issued by the Government; but the booksellers make all sorts of excuses, the real fact being that there is very little profit to be got out of them, and a good deal of trouble Yet those Blue Hooks contain very interesting information, as for instance, the reports in regard to accidents in mines, and upon many other subjects. I do not see why the Officers at the Treasury should not work with the Postmaster General, and arrange that public documents may be issued all over the Kingdom and sold in the Post Offices, at the prices at which they are published. I hope the Secretary of the Treasury will take this matter into his serious consideration.

I also concur in the view expressed by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, that the Member for the Rotherham Division of Yorkshire has done excellent service in calling the attention of the Government to this subject. I think that a great deal is required to he done in order to popularize these publications, and much might be done in the direction pointed out by the hon. Member. It seams to me, however, that in order to popularize the Blue Books issued by Parliament, not only must we have publishers to push them, but something must be done in order to make the Blue Books themselves popular. Now, it strikes me that a great many publications are issued which are not only unpopular, but are simply unreadable. An hon. Member once told me that in making a speech he always found it much easier to be long than to be short, so it is in the case of these publications. It is much easier to pitchfork an enormous number of documents before the public than to supervize them and render them readable. I think a great deal of the blame attaches to the Government themselves. No doubt, they occasionally issue documents which are not only interesting, but useful. There are, however, many documents of the same kind which they do not care to give to the House, and in other cases, they are frequently accompanied by a good deal of unnecessary padding. For instance, in the Blue Books issued in regard to Egypt the Government contrived to suppress very carefully everything that anybody cared, to know, yet they give an extraordinary amount of useless information, full of details about things it was not probable any human being cared to read. By that means they made all the volumes issued in respect of Egypt uninteresting and unreadable. Therefore if we are to popularize our Blue Books and Bills, we must begin by condensing them, and making them interesting and readable. When we have done that, we should endeavour to secure the services of a good publisher, in order to push forward the sale. In that way, I think that an enormous amount of information which is contained in these Blue Books would be popularized and would not be lost to the world, as at present. For my own part, I have been in the habit of sending the Blue Books I receive to my constituents, so that they may be made acquainted with the information published by the Government. No doubt, a good many of the Parliamentary Papers issued by this House are in the highest degree imperfect, and unfortunately Parliament has no control over its own printing, and it is with the utmost difficulty that Members are able to obtain important in formation upon any subject when an opportunity is about to be afforded for discussing a particular question in this House. When Notice has been given of a Motion, and Papers are asked for, they are very rarely produced until the moment the subject itself is coming on for discussion; and if any complaint is made, the fault is thrown upon the printers. The Government say—"We have no control over the printers, and we cannot guarantee when the information which has been promised may be published." Now, it seems to me most extraordinary that such a state of things should exist. There is no second-rate newspaper in London, or in the Provinces, which would not, in the course of 12 hours, supply this information to the public if it were handed over to it. It does seem to me very extraordinary that the House of Commons should have no control over its own printing, and in consequence the House is unable to insist upon important documents being produced within a reasonable time. At present the head of any Department is able to put off the production of important Papers by merely saying that he has no control over the printers. In many cases it is not until Parliament has been prorogued, and when the information is of no service whatever, that it supplied to the public. I trust that we shall receive some explanation as to the way in which departmental printing conducted, and who is responsible for having it done in a reasonably rapid time.

Before the discussion closes, I should like to say a word or this matter; because I have, on former occasions, endeavoured to place my view on the question before a Committee of this House. I will not allude to the question of popularizing these documents, because I am afraid that in that direction we may find ourselves in a long lane which has no turning. But I think that something may be done in the way of economy in connection with the publication of Parliamentary Papers. I have ventured to suggest before, and I will do so again, whether it is not a matter worthy of consideration that the Government should leave a large number of these books to be asked for by Members, instead of circulating' them as a matter of course. At present, I am afraid that the neighbouring butterman is the only individual who derives any benefit from a large number of the Blue Books now circulated. Instead of sending all the Parliamentary publications to the residences of hon. Members, I think that Members themselves should be required to notify to the Stationery Office what Blue Books they require for their own personal use. By that means, think a considerable economy may be effected.

I am of opinion that if some of the Reports and Papers issued by Parliament were published in a heap, attractive, and well-edited form, many Members would be encouraged to purchase largo numbers of copies for distribution among their constituents. Unless, however, they are put in a proper form, they are entirely valueless for general circulation. As an instance of what I mean, I will mention the sixpenny edition of the Report of the Commission on the Depression of Trade. I believe that that Report, so far as it has been circulated, has done much good; but if it had been advertized in some way, a very much larger number of copies would have been disposed of. At present many people are not aware that it can be purchased for 6d.; otherwise I have no doubt that the publication would have been profitable, and it would certainly have been instrumental in circulating important information through the country. I believe, if it is made possible that the Parliamentary literature to be issued can be obtained cheaply from this new Department—this bureau of labour statistics, I presume it may be called—it will be of great value to the constituencies.

I believe that I am the only Member of the House now remaining who sat on the Committee of 1873 and 1874 on this question of the stationery. Many of the improvements that were then recommended have since been carried out. I have watched this Vote very carefully ever since, and I have certainly seen improvements effected in a variety of ways in the printing arrangements which have been made by the Government. But, considering the length of time which has elapsed since the Committee sat, I would suggest to the Secre- tary to the Treasury the propriety of taking steps for the appointment if a new Committee. If such a Committee were appointed, say next Session, I believe that it would be found practicable to carry out many of the suggestions which have been made in the course of the discussion.

Before the Secretary of the Treasury rises to reply, I should like to call attention to a matter upon which. I asked for information at the commencement of the Session—I refer to the sale of the copyright of the Government in the publications they issue. My hon. Friend the Member for the Rotherham Division of Yorkshire (Mr. A. H. Dyke Acland) is anxious that there should be a cheap popular reproduction of the useful Blue Books published by this House, and he believes that if there were a more cheap reproduction, these Parliamentary Papers would have great educational value with the people of this country, and that they would be largely read and much appreciated. But if the Government has disposed of its copyright in the republication of its own documents, it is impossible for hon. Members to hope for such a cheap and popular republication of Government documents as is generally desired. [Mr. JACKSON dissented.] I am glad to see that the Secretary to the Treasury expresses dissent, but I remind him that up to the present moment we have had no information on the subject, although the assertion has been frequently made that the Government have parted with their copyright in Parliamentary documents. If it is true that they have sold the sole right of publishing Government Papers, for a specific sum, then I think that they have practically parted with the copyright. I hope, however, that the statement will turn out to be untrue. If these documents are published, as I think they ought to be, for the advantage of the public, the Government ought to be grateful to anybody who will reproduce them cheaply, und if the newspapers or any public associations would publish them and distribute them, I think they would do a good service. With reference to the labour publications issued by the Board of Trade, I would venture to express a hope that they will be published periodically, and at regular intervals, in a cheap form, so that they may reach the masses of the country, but not in the ordinary shape of a Blue Book. They might be issued at a very much smaller cost than the documents which have recently been published, and hon. Members would then be able to send thorn to trades union clubs for distribution among the working classes who are specially interested in such subjects. I think those documents would be exceedingly useful and very educational, and that they would practically do great service in reference to the labour question. As we are anticipating Reports in reference to foreign labour, the wages paid in foreign countries upon co-operation, and other kindred questions of great interest to the working classes, I hope some means will be taken for publishing these papers at the lowest possible rate, so that they may be largely distributed throughout the country. I know that that was what was contemplated when the Department was formed. I must congratulate the Secretary to the Board of Trade on the first fruits of Mr. Burnett's work, which I think are very excellent. There is no one who is capable of doing the work better than he has done, and I only hope that the work will be published sufficiently cheap to bring it within reach of the masses.

I did not intend to obtrude myself upon the Committee in the discussion of this Vote, and I only rise for the purpose of saying that although I quite agree with the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) as to the advantages of publishing these Parliamentary Papers at a cheap rate, I do not at all agree with him in the comments he has made upon the labour statistics which have just been issued. A publication which professes to deal with trades unions, but only deals with 18 out of more than 250, and tells very little about those which has not already been published, cannot be of much use to the people whom it is intended to serve. Unless there is some reference to the rate of wages from time to time, and if these statistics are only to be published at long intervals, I shall feel inclined to regret that I have put the country to the expense of giving them at all. I shall be glad to hear from the Secretary to the Treasury what the Government intend to do in the matter. Nothing has as yet been done to give effect to the intention with which the Returns were asked for.

There is another point to which. I wish to direct the attention of my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury—namely, whether the cost of printing, as an article of production, has been sufficiently reduced. I believe there will be no doubt among men who have had to deal with printers' bills during the last few years, that they have been largely reduced: and. further, it is a matter of experience, that with proper and legitimate pressure, even a farther reduction might take place. I would ask my hon. Friend whether, as a matter of business, he has endeavoured to secure a reduction in the printing charges? The next point to which I desire to draw the attention of my hon. Friend is the necessity for the exercise of greater discrimination in the number of copies published. I quite agree with what has been said in regard to the valuable Report of the Commission upon Technical Education—namely, that it should have been allowed to run out of print. In the second volume there are constant references to the first volume; but when application is made for the first volume, it is found impossible to obtain it. I think it is not asking too much to urge that at an early date there should be a republication or reprinting of the first volume. The next point I wish to press is the necessity for some more careful selection of the matter of the Blue Books, Reference has been made to the abstract which has been issued of the Report on Accident in Mines, which naturally embodies a summary of a large mass of evidence. I think the attention of heads of Departments should be directed to the subject, in order to insure that the valuable parts of an inquiry should be submitted in the nature of a precis or summary apart from the larger volume containing the evidence in full, so that those who have neither the time to wade through a ponderous volume, nor the purse that would enable thorn to pay for it, should be able to obtain, in a cheap and simple form, what is likely to be of real use to them. There is another question to which I wish to call attention which has not been referred to in the course of this brief debate, and that is, that the great cause of the increase in the printing bill is the action of Parlia- ment itself. I do not refer to the printing of Returns, but to the creation of new Departments. Some reference has been made to the Explosion of Boilers Act. The passing of that Act involved the appointment of an Inspector, and. of course, an Inspector must report. If he did not, his appointment would be almost a mockery. An Inspector who gave no information would be of little service, and his influence upon the public at largo would be very little. I would venture to say that when once Parliament has appointed an Inspector it is bound to publish his Reports. I know, from my own experience in these matters, that not only the persons employed in the management of mines or as superintendents of boilers have derived great benefit from the diagrams contained in these Reports, but that much advantage has been obtained by the workmen themselves.

I quite agree with the hon. Member for Stockport that this Vote, including, as it does, an item of £185,000 for printing and £130,000 for paper, is a very large one. What I wish to know is the mode which is adopted in the Stationery Office for submitting the printing to public competition. I may be told that it is submitted to public competition already; but the competition is that of three or four leading business houses. I do not call that public competition in the strict sense of the term, and I hope the Secretary to the Treasury will let the Committee know that in future these large contracts will be submitted to, at least, 12 of the leading business firms. I believe that if that were done we should be able to make a very large saving on that head alone. It was only the other day—I will not mention either the Vote or the specific item, but it was a Vote for a very considerable sum of money—that it was pointed out that of four firms who had submitted prices, two happened to represent the same firm, so that they obtained 50 per cent of the advantage of the tender. I think that these tenders should be spread over something like a dozen firms at least, in which case it would be impossible for a circumstance of that kind to arise. I hope we shall have an assurance from the Secretary to the Treasury that at least 12 leading firms shall have an opportunity of com- peting for the various items embraced in the Stationery Vote.

I had almost hoped that the Secretary to the Treasury had spoken before now upon the points which have been under discussion, because I am anxious to bring forward a mutter of interest which has not been alluded to by any previous speaker in connection with this Vote. I had hoped that the interesting questions raised by the hon. Members for Stock-port and the Rotherham Division of Yorkshire, as to the general expense of printing and publishing Parliamentary Papers, would have been disposed of before I referred to the charge for the printing of the Parliamentary Debates. If hon. Members will refer to page 21 of the Estimates, they will find there is a charge of something over £5,000 for the Parliamentary Debates. Now, we all know that for very many years the printing of the debates has been in the Lands of Mr. Hansard.

A separate Notice has been given in regard to the particular item to which the right hon. Gentleman is now referring, and it would, therefore, be better to reserve the discussion upon it until that Motion is made.

I was not aware of that.

I myself have an Amendment upon the Paper in reference to that question. But before we reach it, I wish to say a word upon the observations which fell from the right hon. Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield (Mr. Mundella). The right hon. Gentleman said that it is desirable to publish and widely circulate a great many of the Reports submitted to the House, and he suggested that it should be done at the expense of the Government. Now, I do not think that that is quite the best plan. As hon. Gentlemen well know, the mere fact of publishing a Parliamentary Paper in a Blue Book will not in any way save expense if it is desired to re-issue it in another form. The whole of the original cost of publication would have been already incurred. I think the better plan would be to have an understanding that those who do the printing of Blue Books and Returns shall not have an exclusive right to these publications, and then other pub- lishers would make it their business to go into the market and bring out, in a cheap form, such matter of that kind as may be likely to be demanded by the general public. I think the Secretary to the Treasury will find that that is not only the best, but infinitely a cheaper plan than getting the Queen's printers to republish a document. I wish, further, to ask the hon. Gentleman to tell the Committee, when he rises to reply to the general discussion, why it is that the printers take so very long in submitting to Parliament the Blue Books which are ordered to be printed. The reason I take it to be is this—that the printers employ a certain number of compositors and a certain number of boys, and find it cheaper to keep the public waiting, rather than increase the number of compositors and pay for the work upon a better scale. There ought to be some plan by which the House of Commons would not have to wait so long as it now does for these Papers. A trumpery Return, which might easily be produced in three days, is often not presented for ninny weeks.

In reference to the question brought forward by the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Jennings), I may say at the outset that I am extremely glad that the Committee seem disposed to give a general support to the Government in endeavouring to limit, as far as they can, the useless printing and publication of Blue Books, and may say at once that I cordially welcome the assistance of the criticism which my hon. Friend has brought to bear on this Vote. But I would point out to the Committee that the Stationery Office is in a most peculiar position in this matter. I need hardly remind the Committee that the Stationery Office, as far as it is concerned, has, practically, no control over the amount of paper and printing which may be required by the Public Departments. I see no remedy for that the Stationery Office has been constituted for the purpose of supplying all the stationery and printing which may be needed for the various Public Departments, and I have no doubt whatever that the Stationery Office, dealing as it does with the whole of the printing which the various Departments of the Public Service require, does effect an enormous amount of economy as compared with what the result would be if each Department were allowed to control its own printing in its own way. The hon. Member for Stockport has spoken of the very large sum expended upon paper and printing for the Public Departments. Now, according to the information which I have received, not only is the paper bought by open competition, and not only are tenders invited, as an hon. Member has suggested, from at least 12 firms, but I am told that any firm occupying a reasonably responsible position, which applies to be put on the list of the firms which receive from time to time notice that tenders are being invited, is at once placed on the list, and at the present moment there are more than 100 firms on the list to whom the tenders are sent.

Are they paper manufacturers?

I believe they are manufacturers and merchants.

How many manufacturers are there?

I do not know; but I believe that some of them are manufacturers, and some of them, are merchants. I know, from my own personal experience, that it is a great fallacy to suppose that it is always an advantage to purchase direct from the manufacturer. I have known a great many instances in which it has been possible to buy cheaper from the merchant than from the manufacturer. Therefore, I do not think the Government should be limited in their dealings to the manufacturer, but that they should go openly into the market and buy where they can get the article they want at the cheapest rate whether it be from the manufacturer or from the merchant. I admit that that is a very large question, and I have a sort of conviction that there is an enormous waste in connection with the publication of Blue Books and the printing for the House, but the Stationery Office has no control over it. Let me take the case of printed Bills introduced by private Members, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport. Now, the House has ordered the printing of Bills, and unless the House reforms its own procedure, it is absolutely impossible for the Stationery Office to exorcise any real economy in the matter. I should only be too glad, if it were possible, in some form or other to limit the extraordinary amount of printing for which the public have now to pay. I readily admit that a great many useless publications are issued, and, as far as I am concerned, I should most cordially welcome any proposal that would have the effect of limiting this expenditure. I can assure the Committee that from time to time, within the last 12 months, I have myself made strenuous efforts to induce hon. Members who have moved for Returns which seem to me to be of small public interest, to accept the presentation of the Returns giving the information sought for, and thus saving the country the enormous cost of printing them; but I can assure the Committee that I have met with very little sympathy in the efforts I have made in that direction, and I should be very glad indeed if the Committee would support me in future endeavours to limit that expenditure. We have extended what is called "the short list." We have endeavoured to limit and to place on that list all such papers as we think ought to be put on the short list. But from time to time we have complaints from hon. Members that they have not received their Papers, and as they are quite within their right in putting down their names to have all the Papers sent to them, their wish must be complied with. I may further remind the Committee that in regard to the question of the Stationery Office it has been quite recently the subject of investigation, by a Committee over which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) presided, and which I believe did extremely good service in connection with that matter. The whole question was most carefully gone into, and the cost of printing, partly from the result of the labours of that Committee, in connection with fresh contracts, has been enormously decreased; something like £30,000 a-year less being paid now than was paid formerly. Therefore, what I want the Committee to understand is this—that while I sympathize with what I cannot but feel is the general impression, that the amount of money expended in these publications is enormously large, it is almost impossible to adopt any measure for limiting the amount, unless Members of the House of Commons will themselves assist in carrying out that object. My hon. Friend the Member for Stock- port spoke of illustrating the Blue Books with costly engravings and coloured plates. I need hardly remind the House that as far as the Stationery Office is concerned, and as far as the control of the Stationery Office is concerned, they are absolutely powerless in. the matter. These Reports are issued by the Departments—many of them by the Foreign Office—and all we have to do is to accept them as they are presented and sent to the Stationery Office. All other questions must be dealt with by the Department itself. I am afraid that my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Board of Trade represents a Department which is largely responsible for many of these costly publications, although, no doubt, they have great public interest, and some of the matters to which they relate are of the utmost consequence. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport made some complaint as to the employment of women and girls.

No; I asked for an explanation as to the item for porters.

No doubt, the charge for porters is very large; but I can assure my hon. Friend that these porters are fully employed and are absolutely necessary, ft must be borne in mind that the Stationery Office have to deal with an enormous quantity of paper and of publications, and that they have to meet sudden demands which at any time may come upon them from various Departments. It is therefore absolutely necessary to keep up a large staff of porters. Indeed, I am afraid that it is absolutely essential to keep up at all times the maximum staff. As to the suggestions which have been made by the hon. Member for the Rotherham Division of Yorkshire about popularizing the Government publications, and insuring a large circulation of thorn among the constituencies, I can only give one word of caution on that subject—namely, that it certainly does not mean economy. It does not moan limiting the cost of the Stationery Office, because, although you may increase the circulation, it must be borne in mind that every one of these Government publications is sold at less than cast price. Therefore, the larger the circulation the more the Government have to pay out of pocket. I entirely sympathize with the views which have been expressed in regard to the wider circulation of Parliamentary Papers of general interest, and as fur as I can give effect to what I believe to be the view of the Committee with reference to such Reports I shall certainly do so. I have given general orders to the Stationery Office in regard to this question that they are always to bear in mind that whenever a Report is of itself an interesting document, and one likely to have a large circulation, it is, wherever practicable, to be issued as a separate Paper, so that it may be obtained at a small cost. This is especially desirable, I think, in a case where the details and the evidence are voluminous, and likely to be sold at a high price. In reference to another subject to which attention has also been called—namely, the printing of Acts of Parliament—hon. Members will be aware that we have been pressed from time to time to print such Acts at a small price. Acts of Parliament have been printed hitherto, and mainly published by one firm. It is the intention of the Government, in the future, to have the Acts printed under Government sanction and authority, and sold in the same way as other Government publications, which means practically the selling of them under cost price. It is thought desirable that everybody should be able to obtain the Acts of Parliament which are passed from year to year. The hon. Member for the Rotherham Division of Yorkshire spoke of the Report of the Commission on Technical Education being out of print. I understand that that Report is out of print; but I think the fact illustrates the difficulty of dealing with this Vote—namely, that it is almost impossible to gauge exactly the number of copies that may be required of any particular Paper. There has been no desire whatever to restrict the printing of this Paper. No doubt, from time to time the Office has sailed very close to the wind in the supply, and in this particular case the demand has exceeded the supply which was prepared. I understand that the Report will be reprinted if there is any general demand for it. Before I go further, I may say, in reference to the increase in the cost of the Papers, that it was found that last year's estimate was £15,000 less than the actual expenditure. Therefore, in the present Vote, we have taken a larger sum, although not a sum equivalent to that increase, because there has been a considerable reduction in prices by which we hope to make the two ends meet. Owing to certain changes which have been, made, and the probable saving which will be effected, we have been encouraged to take a sum of £10,000 less than we ought to have taken, having regard to the increase of last year's Estimate. The demands which are sometimes made upon us in consequence of the action of Parliament are difficult to estimate accurately. Let me take the case of the Post Office. In 1883, the cost of supplying the Post Office Department on the average of the two years preceding the introduction of the Parcels Post was £67,000; but the cost of supply in the following year was swollen up to a total of £88,000. Next year it dropped to £78,000, but that sum was nearly £12,000 higher than it was before the introduction of the Parcels Post. Then, again, with regard to the 6d. telegrams; in 1885, the year in which they were introduced, the cost of supplying the Telegraph Department rose to £89,000, or £22,000 in excess of the cost before the new 6d. telegrams were introduced. Similar changes have affected the cost of supplying to the Patent Office, the Bankruptcy Department, the Ordnance Office, the Revenue Department, and several others. The expenditure has jumped up from time to time in consequence of alterations which have been made in connection with the Department. It is scarcely necessary to remind hon. Members that it is not in the power of the Stationery Office to decide what shall appear in the Blue Books; all they have to do is to print that which is presented to them. In reference to what my right hon. Friend the Member for the Epping Division of Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) said as to the Blue Books being kept until a demand is made for them, I can assure the Committee that we have done everything to decrease even the number on the short list, and we shall be very glad to carry out that decrease still further. The right hon. Member for the Bright-side Division of Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) made some remarks in reference to the reported sale of the Government copyrights. Now, I have no knowledge of any such transaction, and I believe it to be an entire misapprehension. What the Government have done is this—the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly aware that tenders wore advertised for in regard to the right of selling certain. Government publications; but that does not prevent the Government from exercising all the control it now possesses in regard to printing and publication. There has been no sale of the copyrights of the Government whatever, and there is no restriction imposed, as far as I know, upon anybody who desires to print extracts or summaries of Government publications.

The hon. Member has not said whether he is in favour of the appointment of a Committee similar to that which sat in 1873–4 in regard to these questions.

I think the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member is well worth considering.

I may inform the hon. Member that the result of the inquiry of that Committee was to bring about a large decrease in the expenditure.

I think I have now gone through, although, I am afraid, in a very discursive manner, most of the points which have been brought forward in the course of this discussion. I trust that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport will be satisfied with having brought the matter before the Committee, and I need hardly say, that as far as I am concerned, every suggestion which has been made with a view of-reducing the very large charge which is included in this Vote will be carefully considered, I trust that my hon. Friend will now withdraw the Amendment.

I said, at the outset, that I did not consider that the expenditure involved in this Vote was one which was in the discretion of the Comptroller, or that any blame attached to him in regard to it. I consider that the statement of the Secretary to the Treasury is perfectly satisfactory, and, with the permission of the Committee, I will now withdraw the Amendment.

Before I proceed to move the Amendment I have placed on the Paper, I wish to make one remark upon an expression which foil from the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury. The hon. Gentleman told us that the Blue Books, Parliamentary Papers, Reports, and Acts of Parliament are published at less than cost price. Now, I have here, in my hand, the Report of the Civil Service Commission, and I see the price at which it is sold is 1s. 3d As this is a matter with which I am practically acquainted, I may inform the hon. Gentleman that the cost of producing this Report is much, less than 1s.3d. For my own part, I should be delighted to deliver to him 10.000 copies at 6d. each, and I can assure him I should make a handsome profit out of the transaction. The cost of publishing a document of this kind is principally the cost of setting up, and is a first cost which does not affect the remainder of the copies. As a general rule, the cost is taken in this way—for 500 copies so much, and so much for all copies beyond 500. [Mr. JACKSON dissented.] Well, all I can say is, that I should be glad to take the contract myself. I have now to move the Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper for the reduction of the Vote by £2,000 in regard to the publication of Parliamentary Debates and Records. The Committee will be aware that, at the present moment, the Parliamentary Debates are printed by Mr. Hansard. I am not complaining, in the least, that they are badly printed; but what I do complain of is that this item is excessive and unnecessary. In times gone by, the newspapers did not report our debates at length. The Times and other London daily paper, owing to the exigencies of printing, had to leave off reporting half an hour after midnight, and it was arranged that special reports should be taken by Hansard's reporters from half-past 12, and also when the House is in Committee of Supply, or in Committee upon a Bill. "With these exceptions, no special reports are taken for Hansard, and the entire reports of the debates of the House, distinguishing "the House" from "Committee," are cut out of The Times and sent to Members for correction. At present, everything that occurs in "the House," whether it is before half-past 12 or after, is taken from The Times; nor does Hansard have its own reporters there the only matters they report are the speeches which are delivered in Committee—such conversations as that which is now going on. The debates having been taken from The Times, sent to Members, and returned corrected, are then printed in Hansard. Now, it seems to me that the grant to Hansard is an entire waste of £5,150. The public are certainly not voracious in regard to the eloquence of this House when it is published. Of late, The Times have been republishing weekly a report of the speeches which have been delivered in Parliament during the week. The debates seem to me to be well done, and I think this republication would suffice for all practical purposes if it was taken in by Members and supplied to the library at a price of one guinea per annum. No doubt, it will be said that The Times does not report as fully as Hansard our proceedings in Committee; but, with, all respect for hon. Members, I do very much doubt whether anything beyond what appears in The Times is worth to the country £6,000 per annum. It seems to me that the reports in The Times are quite adequate to meet every general want. However, if a different opinion prevails, nothing would be more easy than to make an arrangement with The Times to take fuller reports than those which appear in the daily paper, and to put a little more into their weekly edition. I do not know why this sum of money has been kept up at this rate, except that it has been for a long time the habit of the House to take the reports of its proceedings from Hansard. Now, I do not know what Hansard is, whether it is a "Messrs." or a "Mr.," or whether it represents anybody of the name of Hansard at all. Moreover, I am not speaking in the interests of The Times, but simply in the interests of economy. I think the whole arrangement ought to be altered. We ought to be perfectly contented with The Times reports in the weekly form, particularly if supplemented in the way I have suggested. If it is objected that there would not be the same facility of correction that there is in the case of Hansard, then I confess that I am against such corrections. I often hear wonderful things fall from the lips of Ministers. I generally make a note at the time, in order to quote it afterwards; but I very frequently fail to find the particular expression I had noted. In the revised report I find the published speech, quite different from the spoken speech. Second thoughts are evidently best. Now, if the reports of our debates are to be official reports, let us have them officially reported. I do not understand having one speech delivered hers in the House and another put on record and sent out to people in the country. I will not say that a Minister ever says a foolish. thing; but very often he says what is not a wise thing, and he thinks it may be made a little hotter by altering it. It therefore comes to this—that we are paying £5,150 a-year in order that we may have fuller reports of proceedings in Committee than those which appear in The Times, and in order that Ministers, and other eminent Gentlemen, should have an opportunity of deluding and misleading the country by correcting their speeches, and sending out to the people speeches entirely different from those actually made in the House. I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £2,000. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £334,260, be granted for the said Services."—(Mr. Labouchere.)

I submit to the Committee that the question is somewhat more important than my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) appears to think from the notice he has taken of it. What I understand is this—that Mr. Hansard received notice at the beginning of the year that his arrangement with the Government would come to an end at the close of the year, and that the Treasury would meanwhile negotiate with, other firms. If that notice is acted upon the series of Hansard will cease with the volumes that will be issued for the present year, those volumes being the last of Hansard that will over be published. I wish the Secretary to the Treasury to tell the Committee whether that is the case or not. I believe I am not overstating the present position of the matter—namely, that Mr. Hansard will not continue to issue the usual debates after the end of the Session, or, at any rate, if there is an Autumn Session, after the end of this year. If that is so, I wish to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, what course the Government propose to take? Do they propose to arrange with any other I firm for the publication of our debates as they have been published by Mr. Hansard, or are we to have, in any shape, an official publication under the I control and responsibility of a Government Department? Now, I am myself very strongly of opinion that it would be objectionable in the last degree to make the publication of the debates of this House an official publication. We have been accustomed to the system of Mr. Hansard, and so far as the correction of speeches is concerned, to which my hon. Friend has jocosely referred, I think that is a matter of comparatively small importance. I cannot altogether agree with what my hon. Friend has said, nor do I think that we can expect that what may happen in the small hours of the morning will not be better given if the speakers are allowed to correct their speeches. But there is I another matter which appears to me to be of real importance in regard to the publication of the debates of this House. If the publication is made an official one, for which Government is to be responsible, I venture to predict that it will lead to a great multiplication of Questions at half-past 4 o'clock from Members complaining that their speeches have been misreported. They will assert that instead of having said one thing, they stated another, and Questions will be repeatedly asked whether their embellishments have not been omitted. Government is every year expected to do more and more; but the idea of creating an additional Government Service for the reporting of debates is to my mind about the worst function they could assume, and I hope and believe that the Treasury have not yet come to any such decision. I think, therefore, that it is important that we should hear from the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Government have, at this moment, agreed to any form of publication other than the present. At any rate, we are entitled to know whether the publication is to be an official one, or a service such as Mr. Hansard has supplied under his arrangement with the Government. The House must not be led to suppose that there is no danger of an official publication of the debates. In the hands of the present Secretary to the Treasury, we may be pretty safe; but, at the I same time, I cannot forget that official publication is almost the invariable rule abroad where parliamentary government exists. It is the rule in America, the rule in America of our Colonies, the rule in France, in Italy, and wherever there are Assemblies to be compared with our own. Therefore, there are many precedents for it; but I think that this House should set its face against official publication. I do not think we ought to add to the responsibilities of the Government, which are heavy enough, that of having under their charge the delicate question of the accuracy of the reports of the debates. That is the only point on which I think it is necessary to have an answer, and I hope the Secretary to the Treasury will not object to give me the information I desire at once, or as soon as he can, in order that the Committee may know and criticize what it is that the Government have in contemplation.

I think the speech which has just been delivered calls for a counterblast. I trust that we are within a measurable distance of the publication of something like, decent reports of the debates of this House. The right hon. Gentleman, with all his experience of Parliamentary tactics, could only meet the objection to our present system of reporting by an admission that every Legislative Assembly in the would that can be compared with the House of Commons docs publish an official report, and the right hon. Gentleman failed to show by what process of reasoning he arrives at the conclusion that the House of Commons should differ from every other Assembly in the world. I do not know what the Secretary to the Treasury has done in regard to Hansard; but I certainly think that the present arrangement is about as stupid a form of compromise as could possibly be devised. Let me inform the Committee what that arrangement is. All speeches which are made when a Bill is first brought in, unless they are reported in some newspaper, and can be copied by Hansard; and all speeches on the second reading are not reported in full, unless they happen to have been reported verbatim in some daily paper. But when we come to the Committee stage, there is not a sneeze that any hon. Member can make that is not taken down and given by the special staff of Hansard. As the result of this system, we have this extraordinary anomalous and imbecile state of things A debate upon the Second Heading of a Bill is given in 10 or 12 pages, although the speeches are of the utmost importance; and then, in Committee, we find 20 pages devoted to the speeches which are made upon the first clause of the same measure. In fact, there is no proportion whatever in the present system; what should be reported in a line is given verbatim, whereas what should have been given verbatim is given in lines. I am not surprised that the Secretary to the Treasury and the Government should desire to put an end to such a system, which is perfectly absurd. I have never, except on one melancholy occasion, revised a single copy of anything that has been sent to me by Hansard. It is quite bad enough to make speeches, without having to read them afterwards. Therefore, my speeches go down to posterity unconnected by me; and I do not hold myself responsible for them. But the speeches made in this House are part of the history of the country, and I am surprised that so experienced a Parliamentarian as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Guilders) should not realize that fact. Let me give an illustration of it. I do not suppose there was ever a speech delivered in this House to which history looked with greater curiosity and interest than the first speech made by the late Lord Beaconsfield. Everybody knows that it was a failure, and that it wound up with one of the most self-confident prophecies soon to be realized, ever made—I mean the passage in which Mr. Disraeli declared that although the House would not listen to him then, the time would come when it would do so. That was in 1837, and since then there have been revolutionary changes in newspaper Parliamentary reporting. In nearly all the popular daily papers we now find the most imperfect reports of Parliamentary proceedings. The newspapers themselves cannot help it. They find that there are a great many things the public care more for than the long speeches delivered here. The only newspaper that attempts to report the speeches at anything like decent length is The Times. [An hon. MEMER: And The Standard.] And The Standard to some extent. But The Tunes reports are extremely imperfect, because they dif- ferentiate—it is very natural that they should—the speeches made by Members of the Front Benches. When a Minister speaks, every word is given; but if any hon. Friend below me the senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) makes one of his sparkling speeches, "which would not only be read, but keenly devoured by the country, I find that not even The Daily News gives one half of it. At the time Mr. Disraeli made the speech to which I have referred, in December, 1837, there were none of the long continental telegrams we have now, and the debates in this House were reported at full length. What was the result? Mr. Disraeli was reported almost in full, and the people for generations, perhaps oven for centuries to come, who may desire to road the speech, can do so by going to one of the papers of the period; and my modesty permits me to say that there is even a more ready way of finding the speech. Weil, supposing Mr. Disraeli had come into this Parliament for the first time, and had made a maiden speech in 1887 instead of 1837, it would have been crushed into three lines, and the result would have been that future Parliaments and future generations would have no record of the remarks he made upon so memorable an occasion. I do not know what other Members think of the matter; but I regard the history even of the present time as quite as important as the history of the country 10 or 17 centuries ago. Only a few-moments ago, we wore discussing a Vote for the purpose of publishing MSS. which throw a light upon the condition of affairs in the world some centuries before, or two or three centuries after, the foundation of Christianity. I not only did not begrudge that money, but I brought to bear as much pressure as I was able to upon the Secretary to the Treasury to induce him to increase the grant; because, in my opinion, history, besides the interest which is attached to it, is the signpost, the warning, and the guide with regard to polities, as well as legislation. To my mind, the history of to-day is as important as the history of 10 centuries ago; and I think that if for £5,000, or £10,000, or £20,000—[An hon. MEMBER: Or £40,000.] Yes, or £40,000, we can secure an accurate report of all the proceedings of this House, the money will be well spent. The money would be well spent in order to preserve to future generations the words used in this House. I might be told that a great deal of rubbish would find its way into the reports; but is not that the case just now? Besides, I should like to know what is rubbish, and what is not rubbish. What a man says to-day when he is below the Gangway may be rubbish so long as he is there; but it becomes sacred gospel when he changes his place to the Treasury Bench. In the debates on the Irish Church Question in 1867—I think it was—I do not think there was a speech delivered which did not contain some reference to Mr. Disrael's utterances with regard to Ireland many years before. The speech in which he referred to Ireland as being alien in race and religion was brought forward over and over again, and I think very properly, and what did Mr. Disraeli say in reply to such references? Why, he said that at the time he made the speech it did not appear to him to excite so much attention—it seemed to him to be pouring water into the sand; but now it would seem as though the water had come from a golden god. But that put my argument into a nutshell—what a man says from any part of this House may become a part of the history, not only of the man himself, but of the country of which he is one of the politicians; and I therefore say, that though trifling and irrelevant observations may sometimes find their way into Hansard, I would take the risk of that, and I would say that this country, like every other country, ought to have something like an authentic national record of the proceedings of its Parliament. For these reasons I take an entirely opposite view to that of the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken; and so long as I am in this House I would urge on the Government the desirability of conforming, in the matter of official reports in this Assembly, with the practice which prevails in every other Assembly of the kind in the world. There is one point in the statement of my hon. Friend to which I would specially allude. I wonder at my hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere) proposing that The Times reports should be taken in this matter. In the first place, I say The Times reports—I do not say The Times is to blame for it, but from the necessities of the case—make an essential distinction between the speeches of different Members of this House. In the first place, an official Member gets a great deal more space than an unofficial Member; in the second place, an English Member gets a great deal more space than an Irish Member; in the third place, an Irish Member gets a great deal more space than a Scotch Member—[No, no!"]; in the fourth place, a Scotch Member gets a great deal more space than a Welsh Member—[Renewed cries of "No, no!"] Well, I will leave Scotland and Wales to fight the question out between themselves; but my experience certainly is that the Irish Members are very unfairly treated in comparison with the manner in which official and unofficial English Members of this House are treated, and that the Scotch and Welsh Members are unfairly treated even as compared with the Irish Members. I say it would be unfair to ask us to take, as an official record, reports which are prepared not on the principle of fairplay between all the Members, but on a system of preference between one Member and another. I will not find fault if the Secretary to the Treasury changes the present arrangement, unless I find that he is going to drive Hansard back into the old ruts. If he is doing that I think he is taking a very retrograde step, because many hon. Gentlemen take up Hansard I suppose in the innocent belief that they are reading the reports which are taken by the independent staff employed by Mr. Hansard. As a matter of fact, that is not the case. The only part of our proceedings now taken by Mr. Hansard's own reporters are those in Committee—I do not know whether they do not take the Report stage of the bills; but I rattier think they do. the rest of the report is cut from the different newspapers, and if the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury withdraws from Mr. Hansard the grant which he has given in previous years, the Committee stage of Bills will be reduced to the same condition as the others, and the reports, instead of being independent reports, will be taken omnium gatherum from the newspapers of the country.

When the discussion took place on last year's Vote, I listened with very great interest and attention to what was said, with the view of ascertaining, if I could, what was the general fooling of the Members of the Committee, and I felt then, as I feel now, that the present condition of the arrangements for reporting our debates is not one which is satisfactory to Members of the House. Sir, when I made inquiries as to how the arrangements stood, I found that, although there was some uncertainty as to whether notice was necessary to be given is order to terminate the existing arrangements before any modification of such arrangements could be made, it would only be fair and reasonable that, at any rate, we should err on the side of dealing quite fairly with those who now publish Hansard's Debates. Therefore, I caused notice to be given to terminate the agreement. That was the first step which was necessary in order to enable us to act with free hands. There have been no arrangements made with regard to what should take place in the future. I was very anxious to hear what the Committee had to say. As the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool has said, there are official reports in most other countries; but I must point out that if an official report is undertaken in this country, I am quite sure that the cost will have to be enormously increased over the sum we now pay. I would go further, and say that I entirely sympathize—speaking my own personal views after inquiries on this question—with what the light hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) has said, that it would be a most unwise proceeding on the part of the Government to accept the great responsibility of publishing an official report. I think the Committee will also feel—and in this I sympathize with the views expressed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool—that there ought to be some record of the debates and transactions which take place in this House, and not only in this House, but also in the other House of Parliament. It must be remembered that Hansard deals not only with debates in this House, but also with debates in the other House of Parliament. I think it will be the general opinion of the Committee that something will have to be done in order to preserve a record of what takes place in Parliament, and that, therefore, some arrangement will have to Lo made. Sir, as a question of cost, I believe that in the United States, where an official report is published, the cost is, or was, about £50,000 a-year. [An hon. MEMBER: Not dollars?] No; pounds. I believe there has been some reduction obtained on that of late, understand that the following countries have official reports of debates:—Austria, Prance, Germany, Italy, the United States, Victoria, Queensland, and Now Zealand. The following have official reports—that is to say, reports published at the public cost, the work being done by contractors—in the other case it is done entirely by a staff, under the control of the Government:—Nova Scotia, Now Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and South Australia. In the following there are reports published by private enter-prize, without, apparently, any official authority being; attached to them:—Canada, Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, the Capo of Good Hope, New South Wales, and Tasmania. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: Are those reports in full?] I believe they are full reports; but they are left entirely to private enterprize. Well, there are several alternatives open to us. One is to publish, an official report; another is to improve or modify the existing arrangement; and a third would be to make an arrangement with some new firm. I have said that notice was given to Mr. Hansard early, to enable the Government to act. That notice will not take effect until the end of this Session. I need hardly say, with, regard to those who are responsible for the publication of Hansard's Debates, that publication having gone on from the year 1803 consecutively and continuously, some consideration is due to them when it is proposed to break up an arrangement of that kind. I am sure the Committee will not desire in any sense to treat Mr. Hansard unfairly or unfavourably in the matter. I am not in a position to say what course will be taken; but I have listened to what has been said, and I will endeavour to inform myself still further as to what is most agreeable to the House. My own impression leans to the making of a modified arrangement, because I think there are two points to bear in mind; one is the question of cost, and the other the question of time—so that the reports will be published in good time, so as to be in the hands of Members a little earlier than they have been hitherto. But the position is simply this—that we have given notice, so that our hands are free, and we shall endeavour to make arrangements that will be satisfactory to the House.