SUPPLY.—REPORT. (Hansard, 7 March 1879)

§ SIR HENEY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, he promised to ascertain, as far as he could, what was the control which the Stationery Office had over the books purchased for the use of the House. He found that a subscription might be paid to Mr. Henry Hansard of £16 16s. per Session; but the money was not accounted for in the Stationery Office, and that Office had no control over it. The Stationery Office, also, had no knowledge whether copies of Parliamentary Papers were supplied to the newspapers before they were distributed to Members; but he imagined they were not, except in such an instance as that quoted, where the Paper was obtained on a Saturday, while it was not issued to Members till the Monday. With regard to the Re-port which was mentioned—that on the 508 Thunderer—it often happened that Papers were circulated to a Commission sitting on some subject before they were absolutely circulated; and it might be from the Commission the Papers found their way to some outside person or to the Press. No control could be exercised by the Stationery Office over Papers issued from the office of Mr. Hansard; and with regard to Papers issued from the Stationery Office itself, the control there was limited by the fact that some Papers were supplied to sitting Commissions. The amount spent for printing for the House of Commons was £64,301, and of that £24,507 represented that part of the printing for which the Stationery Office was responsible to Parliament. With regard to the number of copies printed, on what was called the short delivery, which were those Papers left for Members who applied for them, 200 copies of each Paper were in general printed for the use of the House of Lords and 200 for the House of Commons. Of the full delivery, or Papers sent to each Member, 500 were printed for the House of Lords and 880 for the House of Commons. Of course, a certain number of copies were produced for purchase by the general public, and a certain number were, no doubt, printed by the Office or by Mr. Hansard's department for that purpose; but they themselves were the judges, when the Paper was issued, what the probable number would be which the general public might be expected to take. No doubt, a very large mass of old Papers was stored away at the Stationery Office; but they were not the property of the Office, and the officials did not even keep the key. The keys and the Papers were in the custody of, and belonged to, the officers of the House of Commons, and the Stationery Office had no control over them, except that they knew they were so stored away and numbered. In calculating the cost of the production of Papers, it was divided between composition, or setting up the type, press work, and paper, and the whole three were charged as against the public accounts for works issued; but hon. Members who would consult the general published accounts would see that the amount for composition, which was much the heaviest, was not charged to the general public. It remained with Mr. Speaker to decide the question of the number printed, and Mr. Speaker 509 was, he believed, considering changes in the whole system of the printing of the House. It might form part of their consideration that a further supply of public Papers should be printed for distribution to the public libraries. It could be done without serious expense, and he thought the proposal might be carried out by a system which he would venture to propose. As to the books sold in the Education Department in Ireland, the Stationery Office did not supply those books at all. The Education Office in Dublin had the control of that supply. The amount asked for in the Estimate was £34,480, and the amount calculated as to be received for the sale of books was £30,000, or thereabouts. Of course, there must be more printed than would be sold in one year, which would account for the great difference between the two sides of the account.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
said, the explanation just given showed that with regard to the Irish Education Vote there was no fault to be found with the Department of the hon. Baronet; but the fault found on the previous evening by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) was that the Government undertook the work of booksellers in Ireland, sold books, and did the work very badly. Other booksellers in Ireland were anxious to be allowed to sell educational books at a cheaper rate; but the National teachers were forbidden to sell any but the Government printed books, and, consequently, pupils had to pay extra prices for the books, and more than they would have to pay if the matter were open to competition. He would refer to this matter more fully, however, when the Vote for the Irish Education came up for discussion. As to the issue of Papers, what he complained of had occurred, not once, but three or four times in the year, and it was not always a case of a Saturday or a Monday. The Thunderer Report appeared in The Observer; but hon. Members did not got the Paper till Thursday. If the Stationery Office had no control over Mr. Henry Hansard, they should not 'give the Papers to him until they were issued to hon. Members.

SIR HENEY SELWTN-IBBETSON
said, the hon. and gallant Gentleman misunderstood him. He said that a cer- 510 tain number of copies were always issued to a Commission, and in that way it might often happen that the papers got them before they were circulated to hon. Members; but the Stationery Office never circulated them to anybody until they were in the possession of Members.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
said, he understood that in some cases Papers did reach Mr. Henry Hansard before they reached Members, so that in future—

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, it was from Mr. Hansard, not the Office.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
said, the Stationery Office must have some control—

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, none whatever.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
said, they paid Mr. Hansard. If they paid him they must have some control over him.

§ SIR HENEY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, none whatever.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
asked where, in that case, were they to seek a remedy, if Mr. Hansard were under no control?

§ SIR HENEY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, he explained, on the discussion of the Vote, that he was under the control of the House and of Mr. Speaker.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
said, he might have fallen into some mistake as to that portion of the subject. But in the case of the Thunderer, that was not a case of Mr. Hansard's papers, nor was it a case of a Commission, for he did not remember that there was a Commission sitting at the time. Further, he did not think that was the case, and that the Report was obtained in that way, for the papers evidently fancied it was a Parliamentary Paper issued in the usual way, and spoke of it as a Parliamentary Paper issued that morning. In consequence, he looked among his Papers very carefully for it, fancying from what he read that the Report must have been issued to the Members; but it had not been sent. This sort of thing occurred so very often, and always in the case of very interesting papers, that he thought there should be some look-out kept that these Papers were not issued to the newspapers before they reached hon. Members. A few hints would easily remove the evil; and it certainly was an evil for these questions to be removed from their control and handed over to the newspapers. Hon. Members 511 ought certainly, he thought, to be on a level with the newspapers.