§ MR. BAINESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government, on the expiration of the patent of the Queen's printer for England and Wales, on the 21st January, 1860, to propose the renewal of that patent, so far as it related to the printing of Bibles and Testaments, or any restriction on the free printing of the Holy Scriptures?
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that the restraint on printing the Holy Scriptures in the United Kingdom did not, as the hon. Gentleman seemed to think, and, as indeed, was the general opinion, rest merely on the patent given to the Queen's Printer; 971 it rested on the prerogative of the Crown. The Crown had the prerogative of restraining the printing of the authorized version of the Scriptures, and also of the Book of Common Prayer; and that prerogative would subsist until it was abandoned by the Crown, or put an end to by Act of Parliament. Now with regard to the hon. Gentleman's question, he had to reply that the question of continuing the monopoly of printing the Scriptures was under the consideration of the Government, and as it was one that involved a good many points they had not yet come to a decision on it. Perhaps the House would allow him to state that, so far as the matter had been represented to him it could not be said that there was any practical grievance with respect to the Bible or the Prayer Book as to inaccuracy or as to want of cheapness. He was assured that the cheap prices at which the Bible and Prayer Book were printed could not be exceeded; and that copies printed by the Queen's Printer and the two Universities were circulated in the United States and our Colonies, and competed with Bibles and Prayer Books printed in the United States without any restraint or monopoly. With regard to cheapness, therefore, he was not aware that the removal of the present restriction would be of any advantage. As to the accuracy with which the authorized version ought to be printed, he thought that some authentication by a public authority was necessary. He had to state to the House, also, that although in Scotland there was no monopoly with respect to any printer, there was nevertheless a restraint on printers, inasmuch as it was not competent to any printer in Scotland to publish a copy of the Bible without the consent of the Bible Board; and that was just as much a restraint on the liberty of printing as if the privilege of printing were granted to a limited number of persons. Besides, if that system were introduced in England, the House ought to be aware that it would entail a certain expense. The expenses of the Bible Board in Scotland in 1858 were —for secretary, £600; law agents, £240; law charges and other expenses, £250; making a total of £1,090; an amount which the House would be shortly called on to vote again, when the Miscellaneous Estimates were brought up. If that system were extended to England the expense would be much larger; while, according to the system existing in this country, com- 972 petition was, he was told, active between the Queen's Printer and the Universities, and the country was put to no expense in ensuring cheapness and accuracy.
§ MR. HADFIELDasked if the Government would suspend the renewal of the patent until the House had had an opportunity of expressing an opinion on the subject. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was much mistaken as to the cheapness of the work.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that no legislation was required for the purpose of renewing the patent of the Queen's Printer. It was a grant which was derived from the prerogative; and there was no occasion at all for that House to legislate. The Government had come to no decision on the question. What he said was merely interlocutory, and they had no intention of renewing the patent at the present moment, and other opportunities would occur for bringing the matter under the consideration of the House during the present Session.