HC Deb 20 July 1860 vol 159 cc2259-62
MR. BAINES

rose to ask the Home Secretary, what course the Government intended to pursue as to the Queen's Printers' patent for printing the Bible. The House was aware that a Seclect Committee sat during the last Session and the present, to inquire into this subject; and in their Report they made the following recommendation, namely,— That the Patent of the Queen's Printers, so far as relates to the printing of Bibles and New Testaments be not renewed, and that no exclusive privilege of printing the Sacred Volume be allowed henceforth to exist. As Chairman of the Committee, he thought it his duty to give his right hon. Friend (Sir George Lewis), the opportunity of informing the House and the public the course which he intended to take on this matter. It was not his (Mr. Baines') intention to discuss the general question on its merits, owing to the advanced stage of the Session; but there were one or two points to which he must draw the attention of the Home Secretary and the House. Whilst the Committee was yet sitting—as the former patent of the Queen's Printers expired in January, 1860—the right hon. Gentleman renewed the patent, not for any term of years, but during the Queen's pleasure. But if that patent should not be revoked by an Act of the Government, the recommendation of the Select Committee would be set aside, and the exclusive privilege of printing the Bible enjoyed by the Queen's Printers and the Universities would be continued. Now, there were on the face of the patent two great anomalies. It was in the old form, and had the vices of centuries on its head. The patent, in the first place, strictly forbade any other person than the Queen's Printers to print the Bible in England, "of any translation, with notes, or without notes;" and in the second place, it forbade the introduction into or sale in England of any Bibles printed out of England; which of course prohibited the introduction of Bibles printed in Scotland, where the printing had been free for twenty years, though under the supervision of a Bible Board. Now, the English printers were subjected to a real and twofold injustice, and the Scotch only to an apparent injustice; the two kinds of injustice being partially cured by two modes of violating the law. The patentees did not venture to enforce their rights as to the printing of the Bible with notes in England, or as to the importation of Bibles from Scotland. The Scotch printers introduced their Bibles, which were sold as freely in London as in Edinburgh or Glasgow. But the English printers were prevented from printing the authorized version without note or comment—thus losing the privilege of printing the book which was more largely sold than any other book in the world, and although they printed editions of the Bible with notes, yet, in so doing, they were subjected to the payment of the paper duty, from which the Queen's Printers, the Universities, and the Scotch printers were exempted. Therefore, the English printers had to bear an unjust competition with the Scotch printers. In order to show how severely this pressed upon them he would state that he had within these few days presented to the Lords of the Treasury a memorial from the enterprising firm of Messrs John Cassell and Co., of London, in which they said that they were issuing an illustrated Family Bible, for which they had had a sale of nearly 200,000 copies, but "that the paper tax upon this issue amounted to a sum of more than £3,000 per annum, which is substantially a tax to that amount upon the free circulation of the Bible among the classes for whom it is most desirable to provide religious instruction." He did not comment upon these facts, but he thought it right to mention them, and to ask the Government and the House to consider whether the law ought to be left in such a state as to be constantly violated. If unhappily the Government should be so inconsistent with its free-trade policy as to uphold the patent, he should next Session invite the attention of the House to the subject, in the hope that the Parliament which had abolished the customs duties on 400 articles, and thrown open every trade for the supply of every want of the people, would abolish the last and worst monopoly, that of printing the Word of God, and give us that perfect freedom of competition which the experience of all ages and countries showed to be the surest guarantee for cheapness and excellence.

MR. DUNLOP

said, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the intention of Government to maintain to the Queen's Printers the power renewed by the Patent lately granted of preventing the importation into England of Bibles printed elsewhere, and, in particular, of copies of the authorized version of the Scriptures printed in Scotland, by licence, and under the revision of Her Majesty's Bible Board of Scotland?

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, if he had taken advantage of the reappointment of the Select Committee on the printing of the Bible to amend the patent he should have exposed himself to the charge of want of good faith. The hon. Member for Leeds would probably have said that he had met his argument against the patent by altering it, and therefore he had taken care to renew it exactly in its existing form. His own opinion was that, looking to the extreme cheapness of the editions of the Bible and of the Common Prayer Book published in this country, and the great variety of forms in which they were issued, the Bible and Prayer Book were, in fact, published as cheaply under the present system as they would be if the printing were thrown open to public competition, He objected to the expression "monopoly," used by the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Baines), because practically there was a very active competition with respect to the printing of the Bible and the Book of Com- mon Prayer between the Queen's Printer and the two Universities; and every one was aware that the most determined competition might prevail among a very limited number of individuals or of corporate bodies. He believed it was impossible that the Bible could be printed more cheaply than it was printed at present; and there seemed to be a general persuasion in the public mind that it ought not to be printed without some public control and supervision. In Scotland, where it was said the printing of the Bible was free, not a single sheet could be published until it was sanctioned by the Bible Board. A certain expense was involved in the maintenance of that Board, which was paid by the public money; but in England the necessity of paid officers was avoided by the contrivance, which appeared both effectual and economical, of limiting the right of printing the Bible to the two Universities and the Queen's Printer. With respect to the importation of Bibles printed in Scotland, and with respect to the printing of Bibles with notes or illustrations, or in foreign languages, no practical inconvenience existed. The exclusive right exercised by the Queen's Printer and the two Universities was practically limited to the printing of the authorized version without note or comment, and the importation of Bibles from Scotland was perfectly free, there being agencies in London, who kept by them a large supply of Bibles and Prayer Books printed in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman said that this was a violation of the law; but it was not, properly speaking, a violation of the law, but a violation of the Queen's Printer's patent, and, of course, if he chose to waive his right, he had a right to do so. He was not aware of any practical inconvenience in the present state of things; but, if any should he felt, he should be ready to issue an Amendment of the patent. With regard to the Universities, he believed that what was desired could be effected without legislation; but neither the Queen's Printer nor the Universities desired to exercise those rights, which had not been exercised for many years.