HC Deb 27 March 1890 vol 343 cc22-3
MR. ROWNTREE (Scarborough)

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what were the respective numbers in the two editions of the Report of the Special Commission, 1888; and what precedents there are for so large a reduction in price as that from 1s. 4d. to 9d?

*MR. JACKSON

The original order was for 2,000 copies, followed by subsequent orders, raising the total number of copies of the 1s. 4d. edition to 7,000. Twenty thousand copies of the 9d. edition have been ordered from the printer. The precedents are the Report of the Royal Commission on Housing of Working Classes, first sold at 11d., afterwards brought out and sold at 6d.; Local Government Bill, 1888, first sold at 1s. 3d., and afterwards brought out and sold at 3d.; Reports of Royal Commission on Depression of Trade, first brought out in five volumes with evidence and sold at 18s. 11d., afterwards separated and sold at (3d.; Report on Small Pox at Sheffield, originally sold at 24s., afterwards reduced to 10s.

MR. A. ACLAND (York, W.R., Rotherham)

May I ask whether it is not a rule in the Stationery Department that the price of public papers shall be reckoned at the cost of the paper and printing, the setting up being charged upon the Department; if so, and if the second edition of 20,000 copies of the Special Commission Report was printed from the same type as the first 7,000, does not the hon. Gentleman think the discrepancy between 1s. 4d. and 9d. is unaccountable?

*MR. JACKSON

No, Sir. I do not think it is at all unaccountable, because the price was fixed at considerably more than it ought to have been under the rules.

MR. E. HARRINGTON

Do not the precedents quoted relate to matters beneficial to the public; and is there any precedent for a Report of this class, which is practically of a political nature and apparently distributed for a political purpose, being issued at a cheaper rate? Was there any consultation at the Treasury before this step was taken?

*MR. JACKSON

If the ordinary rule had been followed, as the hon. Member for the Rotherham Division (Mr. A. Acland) has pointed out, it would not have been necessary to reduce the price to 9d., because the cost might have been fixed at 9d. in the first instance.