7

I.—B

average of forty-three pages per day. In 1894 Parliament sat on eighty-one days, and produced 3,150 pages, or an average of thirty-nine pages per day. 2. If so, what are the reasons, and what do you suggest as a remedy '?—ln view of answer to No. 1, answer unnecessary. 3. What was the average time worked after the House rose, and before it met, prior to 1893 and afterwards ?—I cannot state the average time, except on Friday nights, when the staff has always gone home as soon as the House rose. Prior to 1893 they remained transcribing from threequarters of an hour to an hour and a half after the House rose, and frequently met again at 11 in the following forenoon to continue transcribing. Of late—that is to say for the last two years—the staff has never remained transcribing after the House rose at night, and has never met again for transcription before 2 o'clock the next day, or on very rare occasions at a quarter to 2 o'clock. 4. If there is any decrease in the hours, has that been due to the different manner in which "Mr. Barron has carried out his duties? —The difference is due to several causes-—viz., increased transcription assistance, through Mr. Barron not taking a turn in the gallery ; increased efficiency in transcription on the part of individual members of the staff; and new and improved type-writing machines. 5. Is it (1) necessary or (2) desirable that the Chief Eeporter should regularly take a turn in the gallery ? —(1) Certainly not ; (2) only in the case of the appointment to the position of a man inexperienced in and unaccustomed to Hansard work. ' 6. Is the present staff overworked; and, if so, would the appointment of an additional gallery reporter relieve the pressure ?—To the first part of the question I answer unhesitatingly, No; the second part of the question therefore requires no reply; but lam of opinion that the relief afforded in times of extra pressure by the engagement of additional transcribers, as at present done, is more satisfactory than would be the appointment of an additional gallery reporter. It appears to me that the importance of rapid transcription makes this quite evident. 7. If the Chief Eeporter reverted to his old system of taking his turn in the gallery, would that relieve the staff sufficiently without the appointment of an additional reporter ?—The staff require no further relief than thataccorded under existing arrangements. 8. If the Chief Eeporter took his turn in the gallery, would his work be any heavier than that of other members of the staff ?—Unquestionably, very much heavier. 9. If not, would £300 per annum be sufficient payment ?—No answer required, in view of reply to No. 8. 10. What should be the duties of a Chief Eeporter ?—Control and supervision of his reporting staff, arrangement of work, the hundred and one details in connection with the editing of a publication like Hansard, supervision of corrections of proofs, <fee.* 11. Is the system of employing note-takers out of the gallery a good one? —Yes (see answer to No. 6). 12. Is Mr. Barron a satisfactory Chief so far as you are concerned? —There is no one point of duty in regard to which I could conceive any one filling the position more satisfactorily ; his authority is absolute and always unquestioned, his impartiality is unwavering, and his treatment of the staff"individually and collectively kind and considerate to the last degree. 13. How should future appointments to Hansard be made ? —I answer this question under protest, as being entirely outside my province. My opinion is that they should be made only on the recommendation of the Chief Eeporter, who must necessarily be the best judge of qualification for this particular expert work. 14. Do you know of anything likely to improve the reporting in regard to the position in which the staff is placed in the House ? —The only idea that has occurred to my mind at all feasible is the possibility of a more central gallery—say, immediately over the Speaker's chair—at a lower elevation than the present one. 15. Is there any necessity for a Chief Eeporter; and, if so, what special qualifications are necessary to fit a man for the position ?—The answer to the first part of this question is obviously in the affirmative (see answer to No. 10). The Chief Eeporter must be a man of refined education, large literary and journalistic experience, high character, great judgment, absolute integrity, impartiality,' firmness, administrative capacity, and self-command. His existence is as necessary to Hansard as that of the Speaker to Parliament; and his relative position to the staff should be similar to that of Mr. Speaker to the members of the House. Waltbk Leslie.

Me. Spkagg's Answbes. 1. Has the work of the Hansard staff per day increased of recent years ?—Undoubtedly ; but we have overtaken it much more comfortably than formerly. 2. If so, what are the reasons, and what do you suggest as a remedy ?—The reason of the increase in the work is the accelerated utterance of members when addressing Parliament. 8. What was the average time worked after the House rose, and before it met, prior to 1893 and afterwards ?—From an hour and a half to two hours before 1893. This year half an hour, with the exception of the few notes those may have who were last on at the Friday sittings, when,

* I have known Mr. Barron to be engaged during the whole forenoon or afternoon of an off-day rendering into a form intelligible to the printer the corrections made by a member in his proof. Important corrections by members in their proofs are submitted for the Chief Reporter's inspection, and in this connection the Chief Reporter requires to be a man of sound judgment, and upright and impartial in this exercise of grave responsibility. Questions of detail regarding form and phraseology are referred by the members of the staff daily to the Chief by dozens. The whole of the " copy " connected with division lists and pairs is prepared for the printer by the Chief. After a night in Committee this alone occupies a whole forenoon. —Walter Leslie.