i ke // ~ Paea ſer An» va/ zºge-
B 587810
.G (
A
C
（**- ?~
; ： »（, « （ ）
• • • 4. .
№aei！！！ Rae'ſ



























FIÚ·! 7·IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII，IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII：I：ſ
. . . ; , ' } ）;-
∞ √° √≠ √∞ √∞ √≠√∞ √≠ ≤ ∞ √≠ ≤ ∞， ∞， ∞; ∞ • • • • • • • • • • • • •·● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●∞ √≠ ≤ ∞， ∞; ∞, ∞， ∞; ∞， ∞; ∞， ∞; ∞ → ∞
||Nº||
*Tº
VIII

f
•w J. ,” * * f
• * Y \, *
*
f • 4.
**
*
&Plea for Annual Lists
of State-Papers and
'Annual Reviews of State-
Papers, as being essen-
tial preliminaries to
State-Paper Catalogues
F. B. F. CAM PBE LL
Assistant in the Library, British A/useum
A Paper read at a Monthly Meeting of the Library Association, May 1 1, 1891
“Gover NMENT BIBLIOGRAPHY?’ ‘‘‘, LI, NEVER BE SATISFACTORY UN r1L THE METHOl's
of Gover NMENT PUBLICATION AND DISTRIBUTION ARE RADICALLY CHANGED.” (R. R.
Bowker, Editor of the “American Catalogue,” 1884-1890, 1891. 4to.)
º
:
i
º
*
:
ILOil Coll
JOHN BALE & SONS
87-89, GREAT TITCHFIELD STREET, OXFORD ST., W.
*
1892










z
T | 64+
,G 7
º
º
A Plea for Annual Lists
of State-Papers and
Annual Reviews of State-
Papers, as being essen-
tial preliminaries to
State-Paper Catalogues
BY
*
Fſ B. F.' cAMPBELL
Assistant in the Library, British Museum
A Paper read at a Monthly Meeting of the Library Association, May 11, 1891
“Government BIBLIOGRAPHY?” “WILL NEVER BE SATISFACTORY UNTIL THE METHODS
of Government PUBLICATION AND DISTRIBUTION ARE RADICALLY CHANGED.” (R. R.
Bowker, Editor of the “American Catalogue,” 1884-1890. 1891. 4to.)
TDOn OOll
JOHN BALE & SONS
87-89, GREAT TITCHFIELD STREET, OXFORD ST., W.
1892
T | 6+
|G: T
A)
C2.
ll- 2–6 - i.e.
22° a 1
A PLEA FOR
Allllllāl Lists Of Stätt-Papers and Amlal R&ViêWS Of
State-Papºrs, AS being (SSBI.tial prélimináriës tº
State-Paper Cătălſglès,
... PREFATORY Notes. (i.) As read, this paper originally included
a general preface written with the view of emphasising the importance of
making State-Papers more available for public use, and showing in a
general manner that in no country had the treatment of State-Papers
been anything but disappointing, if we compared the actual results with
the standard of success which it is quite possible to attain to. I have
decided, however, to omit this preface as being a branch of the subject
which might more profitably form the subject matter of a separate paper.
(ii.) I find, after further experience and investigations, that the whole
subject of State-Paper Lists, Reviews, and Catalogues is even more
dependent for success on attention to prior steps of work than I had
originally realised. For this reason, the matter cannot be comprehensively
or satisfactorily dealt with, without first enunciating more fully than
I have already done (in my previous paper) the Theories appertaining to
those earlier stages, viz., the Theory of Compilation, and the Theory of
Publication. It will be seen, therefore, that I have commenced the whole
subject backwards, beginning with the last stage instead of with the
first. I do not regret this, however, as I believe that the subject may
perhaps be made more readily intelligible in this manner than by the
alternative method. Having then already dealt with the final stage
(A State-Paper Catalogue), I shall now try and show cause for my
advocacy of Annual Lists and Annual Reviews of State-Papers.
IN the summer of 1890, in a paper introductory to the
Theory of a State-Paper Catalogue, I expressed my belief
that in order to render the State-Papers of any nation properly
accessible to the public there were two essential preliminaries :
- { ..."
** .
*
A-
-**
4.
(i.) An Annual List of State-Papers; (ii.) An Annual Review of the
publications appearing in that List, and I inferred that both
publications were necessary, even if a Catalogue of the State-
Papers of the same country were contemplated or were already
in existence; and I further implied that none of the three
publications necessarily encroached on one another's province,
but that the List was a necessary preliminary to the Review,
and both List and Review necessary to the proper compila-
tion, continuance, and full use of the Catalogue.
I start first with the assumption already greatly recognized
in this country, that every man has a right to know of the
existence of every single State-Paper published in the country
of which he is a citizen, except there be some very special
reason on grounds of political expediency for withholding that
information. Furthermore, it will not be disputed that he
has a right to know where any given State-Paper was pub-
lished, by what Department or person, at what date, what
it relates to, how it can be procured, and, in fact every-
thing about it.
But how is he to secure this information ? “By a List,”
is the answer. “And what kind of List?” “A full and
comprehensive one,” is the reply. “Exactly so | But where
is the country where a List is published according to your
definition ?” And this is where the fault lies. There are
many countries in which Lists of one sort and another are
issued. But there is no country which publishes one com-
prehensive List which you could consult with the certainty
of finding a notice of every bona fide State-Report for the
year, together with the series of statements necessary to the
proper description of such Reports.
In some countries, the purely Departmental Reports are
jumbled up together with the purely Parliamentary Papers,
under the head of “Sessional Papers.” Being thus associated
together with Parliamentary Papers for the use of Houses
of Parliament they are printed, arranged, and bound on princi-
ples solely adapted to that purpose. Thus, instead of being
arranged and bound up according to clearly defined natural
subject-groups, with well-chosen titles for the important re-
ports, the minor reports being collected together under general
titles, they are entered in the Lists (if at all), and bound
up, according to dates of printing or “Command.” So long
5
as they have reference numbers and dates, it matters not
that reports which are long and important should be placed
on a level with those which are trifling in nature (such as
short tabulated returns) because an Alphabetical Index repairs
the evil | But even then an Alphabetical Index is only a
partial remedy, if the Lists are compiled upon false principles,
and it would not be required at all for a List of Departmental
Reports, provided these reports were kept separate from the
ordinary Parliamentary Papers, and thus allowed to be entered
in a List according to their own special requirements.
In other countries the Sessional Lists and Indexes are so
meagre as almost to be worthless, and (worst of all crimes) are
almost invariably bound up with the huge Sessional volumes, so
as never to be obtainable separate at any price.
In some instances the deficiency is supposed to be remedied
by the existence of Departmental Lists. But the majority of
men never hear or know of their existence, and even then they
are often very difficult to be obtained. Furthermore, if they are
fortunate enough to procure them they will probably find that
they only contain a limited number of the reports of the Depart-
ment which happen to be in print, or a selection of undated
reports, the titles of which are clumsily abbreviated and which,
for any evidence to the contrary, may be one or ten years old.
Departmental Lists have their appointed ends, and are
indeed necessary to the compilation of the one National List I
advocate, but they must not be allowed to supplant it.
On other occasions the publications of a department are noted
in the pages of the ordinary annual report, but in such cases
they would not readily be looked for and easily escape the
eye. -
In other instances, and in some countries, I fear these swell
the majority, the publications of the National Departments are
noted nowhere at all.
It will readily be imagined from the foregoing that it is no
easy matter for our simple citizen to secure the information he
wants. “Well, but your “simple' citizen can go to the Library,
where he will get what he asks for,” is the retort, “and besides,
what does he want with all this information ? If he were a
learned student in quest of deep knowledge by which to benefit
his country there might be some reason for all this to-do.”
“Very well,” we reply, “while we could easily quote numerous
6
instances where the simple citizen whom you disdain and whose
claims you would ignore has become the expert and master-
statesman, we will ignore his claims on this occasion, because it
is just as easy to show that the experienced librarian and the
learned student are each equally in need of this same informa-
tion as the ‘poor citizen.’ And if it were not obvious we could
show that the same difficulties which harass the librarian and
the student trouble the civil servant also throughout his whole
career.” - •
A librarian who is cataloguing State Papers is bound to
assure himself of numberless little and apparently insignificant
points which to the ordinary eye might seem altogether trifling,
but which, taken together, are in reality of the highest import-
ance, and the elucidation of which is an absolute necessity if the
librarian is to make a correct, explicit, consistent and useful
Catalogue. .
For instance, in regard to reports which relate to such a
Country as India, it is an additional clue to the rank and merits
of a report to know whether it was published on behalf of the
Imperial “Government of India,” or was the work of a Provincial
Government. And, apart from differences of Imperialism and
Provincialism, since Indian State Papers have been published
by many different Governing Bodies, it is not possible to catalogue
them with absolute correctness so as to be easily found, unless
we know which of the said bodies published each individual
report. The full importance of this point will be realised when
we consider that reports relating to the administration of India
may have been published by at least six different governing
bodies, i.e.: -
I. By the E. I. Company's Servants in India.
2. By the E. I. Company's Court of Directors in London (and even
perhaps by the Board of Control). -
3. As E. I. Company's Reports published as Parliamentary Papers.
4. By the British Government's Servants in India (i. The Imperial
Government. ii. The Local Government). t
5. By the India Office in London.
6. As India Office Reports published as English Parliamentary
Papers.
Again; it is necessary for the cataloguer to know by what
Department a report was issued, and also the official title of
the chief of the Department, for this also affects correct catalogu-
7
ing. And this knowledge is just as necessary to the student
also, for a report is sometimes valuable or valueless, according
as it is published by one Department or another. For, although
written on the same subject and with similar title, it may be
written from quite a different point of view, with quite a dif-
ferent object, and arranged on quite a different system.
Again; it is of no small value to know the name of the
immediate compiler of a given report, since in many instances it
makes all the difference, for the official and historian alike, to
know that the opinions expressed in a certain report or series of
reports were those of a man of eminence and reliability or the
contrary, thus enabling them to trace back the reports of the
one and avoid those of the other.
Furthermore, inasmuch as the names of Departments are
often so general as to afford little or no help to the cataloguer,
and since Departments are so liable to constant reorganisation
with consequent changes in the reports, it is often necessary for
the cataloguer to know the official description both of the officer
who has compiled the report, as also of him to whom it is
transmitted, as indicating what Branch of a Department it
belongs to.
Next, since Departments and Subjects are not necessarily
consistent or reciprocal, we wish to know something definite
concerning the matter of the report. To what general subject
does it relate? To what division of that subject 2 Next we shall
wish to know to what territory the report relates—whether to a
whole territory, or to certain parts of it, and if so, to which
parts.
We shall then ask what period of Time the report covers. A
year or a century 2—and if it be an annual report, it is necessary
to know whether it relates to a calendar, financial or agri-
cultural year, and when those years begin and end, since the
two latter ones are always liable to change. Want of attention
to such points may easily affect the accuracy of statistics which
are based upon periods of time. And if a report be Biennial or
Triennial, this also should be clearly stated in order to save fruit-
less labour in searching for annual reports which do not exist.
Next—the Edition and Date. Does the report supersede all
previous ones? Is it the first of a series of “Occasional” reports,
on the first of a series of “Annual” reports; or, is it only an
experimental report which happens to relate to a whole year, but
will not be repeated again
8
And then, of course, the number of pages, the place where
published, the date of issue and price.
Finally (and it is here alone that the List and the Review meet
in danger of trespassing on one another's grounds) it might be
advisable to append to the List a column to include any “Remarks”
calculated to supply useful information which could not very well
be inserted in the existing columns.
Under “Remarks" it might often be stated with advantage
what was the immediate object for which a report was compiled.
This information is often necessary to the cataloguer before he
can assign a report its proper place in a catalogue, while in
showing the general lines of the report it would enable the
student to judge at once whether he would find in it the informa-
tion he desired. -
Often we ask ourselves: Is this the only report on the subject,
or is it published in conjunction with others ? This question
would be answered. At other times, we ask: Is the subject
reported upon for the very first time, or, is it reported upon for
the first time separately 2 If the latter, in what report was it
originally included, and in what section of that report 2
The “Remarks " column would also serve the purpose of
drawing attention to neglect of necessary details of publication,
thus enabling them to be rectified in the future (e.g., “No title
page.” “Table of Contents wanted.” “No Index,” &c. &c. &c.).
The above is a general sketch of the many uses which an
Annual List might serve, and the case is in no way overstated
nor the value of such a list exaggerated. But the list refers
mainly to the exterior of the reports. It remains now therefore
to deal with their interior matter, and this brings me to my
consideration of the second preliminary, an Annual Review of State
Papers.
It is not necessary or indeed possible to sketch the shape
of such an Annual Review in minute detail, inasmuch as this
depends mainly upon the actual matter of the reports to hand.
It is sufficient to state that it will draw attention to all that is
most remarkable in the reports of the year, both as to matter
included or omitted.
It has slowly dawned on mankind during the last ten years
that men like to be informed what to read, and where to find it.
At first this might appear to result from a spirit of indolence
in an age in which men prefer to be done for rather than to do.
9
But second thoughts will convince us rather that the tendency is
due to a genuine difficulty amounting to an impossibility for the
generality of men to keep pace with the rush of life, and thus, in
the matter of reading, to read what ought to be read. Conse-
quently each year sees us more and more dependent on indexes
and selected lists and other aids. As in the world of general
literature, so in each particular section of it. And thus in the
section of State-Papers. It becomes, therefore, more incumbent
on us to do all that is possible to simplify research and to faci-
litate the final possession of knowledge. And in no section of
literature is this simplification more needed than with State-
Papers which so greatly affect the weal or woe of a country.
And in no section is failure to do so to be more deplored, since
in no other direction can such satisfactory results be obtained at
so little cost of labour.
The need of a Review of State-Reports is thus primarily
due to the enormous number of reports published in the course
of each year in contrast with the small amount of time which
can be bestowed upon them. But there is another cause which
increases the necessity of such a remedy, viz., the impossibility
of accurately gauging what we may term the accidental contents
of the average report. Students of State-Papers will have found
that in their researches they may wade through years of annual
reports, and find mere ordinary routine news, when, just as they
are about to give up in despair, they may suddenly stumble
across a nugget of gold. And so great is this uncertainty con-
cerning the insertion or omission of extra-ordinary information,
that even those most experienced in the search for it can never
be sure of knowing where and when to look. Moreover, as we
have pointed out before, it is impossible for cataloguers or cata-
logues to supply all the information necessary. Hence the need
of a Review which shall note the occurrence in the pages of the
yearly reports of matter of special importance, which might
otherwise be forgotten and lie concealed for ages.
The special information to which we allude as so irregular in
its occurrence may be generally expected to appear under the
following circumstances : *
It may be entered in the first report issued by a department,
or it may be given in any report which relates to a year in which
any great change of departmental organisation (amalgamation,
&c.) has taken place. Individual appointments in a depart-
IO
ment may produce the same effect. The changing of supreme
officers or the appointing of a new compiler of an annual report
will often be an occasion for introducing a special chapter or
appendix on the work and history of the department. And
again, if a department be abolished, a history of its work would
naturally appear in the last report. Special matter may be
expected in a report relating to a year in which some external
fact has vitally affected a department, either temporarily or per-
manently. (e.g. In connection with the Famine (Cyclone), the report on
contains an able memorandum on the history of past scourges
(Cyclone-Storms), with a code of regulations to assist in forestalling and
counteracting the evil in the future.)
Special attention would be drawn to the commencement of
new investigations and reports of Governments on such sub-
jects as Agriculture, Archaeology, Natural Products, and In-
dustries. Special publicity would also be given to systems of
official publication. Thus it is not every one who knows that
the Annual General Administration reports of the several
provinces of India (as also the Moral and Material Progress
reports), contain special reports every tenth year, when not only
the events of the last decade are summarised but the whole past
history of each subject is re-written up to date, so as to form a
handy reference-volume for the next ten years.
Defects of compilation and publication (faulty titles, &c.),
might also often be remedied in the proposed Review (e.g. In
the Report on the Revenue Administration of Bengal, the compiley prac-
tically narrates the history of the different Revenue systems throughout
India. The work might, therefore, have well been entitled: “Review of
the various Revenue systems throughout India, with special reference to
the Province of Bengal.”)
And, finally, a great deal of general information could be
given, which would be invaluable to the student. Thus, study-
ing the history of any given subject, as for instance that of
Education, we would naturally wish to know at what period did
the subject of Education first occupy the attention of the
Government of What officials have played a prominent
part in the advocacy of its progress 2 Were they all of the
same school of thought 2 If not, what were their respective
views, and where shall we find them contrasted 2 Where can
we find an epitome of the progress of Education in , with
an account of the causes of failure or success 2.
II
The above notes are but the barest hints as to the nature of
the information which might be sought for, but I hope they are
sufficient to show the form which the Review might take, and
the uses which it might fulfil.
The writer has merely to add that the Annual List and
Review must not be regarded as original suggestions on his part,
inasmuch as the idea is already carried out by the Indian
Government in reference to the publications of the Public Press
throughout India. He merely seeks, in dealing with State-
Papers, to apply those principles (with necessary modification or
expansion) which have already been considered necessary and
found successful in the case of the non-official works of a whole
Empire. And here, in regard both to List and Review, the
question may aptly be asked: Realising the existence of
countless questions which are ever arising in connection with the
State-Papers of the different Governments of the world, whose
duty is it to answer them in order to save the waste of endless
and often fruitless labour which must ensue, and in order to
facilitate the proper cataloguing and use of the same 2 Is it the
duty of the Government which issues those reports; which
controls the compilation and publishing of them ; which is on the
spot, and which alone has the knowledge and power necessary to
answer the questions satisfactorily P Or is it the duty of the
struggling librarian, who has no necessary connection with the
Government concerned, who is perhaps thousands of miles
away, and who has neither the information, nor the power to
obtain the information, which is so necessary to the interests of
his work and his country P
There can surely be but one answer.

AXraft Schedule of List. [CO U NTRY.]
Annual List of State Reports published during the
Year................... Ç
(The Reports are arranged under the several Departments by which they are issued.)
|
I 2 3 4. 5 : 6 7 8 i 9 IO II I 2 I3 I4 I5 16 17 18 I9 2O
i
Tº c General Special i Title. Author, Transmitted Transmitted Territory | Period of Pages. |Edition. Number|Place of Place of Date of Size. Date of |Price. Remarks. | 3 G
5.3 Subject. Branch of Editor or rom . to : Report Time of Printing|Publica-Printing Register- | #3
..??: General Translator of relates to Report - Copies tion. ing. .# =
§: Subject. Book or any Covers. of. §:
&2. parts of it. . Edition &2.
TY OF MI
Mill
.* & ..
, , º, º, - M. . . . .
º
tºº.º. . ;
jº
|
CHIGAN
|






















* * * * * → → → ← → ← → ·
- º.º.）***** （8 ） ：: (）