Volumes within Volumes: British Parliamentary Papers

By jcasbon on Fri, 02/15/2019 - 17:12

Forums

Dear Editor,

I have a new dilemma. I would like to use a reference from the published proceedings of the House of Commons, which I have found as digital images on Hathi Trust Digital Library. Collectively these are referred to as Parliamentary Papers, which is the heading used by Hathi Trust for the "full catalog record" listing the proceedings from 1801 to 1906 (found at https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/100335445).However, the words "Parliamentary Papers" do not appear on any title pages. This seems somewhat akin to saying Senate Documents in lieu of a specific title (chapter 13, QuickCheck Model, Congressional Records).


For any given session of Parliament, multiple numbered volumes are published. The specific session I'm interested in is 19 Feb-10 Sep 1835, which I will abbreviate to "1835 session." There are 51 volumes for the 1835 session and these are organized into categories: Bills, Public (4 volumes), Reports from Committees (16 volumes), Reports from Commissioners (16 volumes), and Accounts and Papers (15 volumes).

These categories may be subdivided into further "volumes." For example the item I am interested in is contained in volume 41 of 51. It is also the 5th of the 15 volumes of Accounts and Papers. The 5th through 8th volumes of these 15 relate to an education enquiry commissioned by the House of Commons in 1833, and are further divided into "volumes" 1 through 3 (i.e., volumes 41-43 of the 1835 session). The pages of this 3-volume sub-sub-set are numbered sequentially 1-1350. 

The title page of the volume I'm interested in is worded as follows: Accounts and Papers: Fifteen Volumes (5.) Relating to Education. Session 19 February--10 September 1835, vol. 41. Additionally there are two subsequent subtitle pages going into more detail about the contents of this specific volume. (attached)

The third of these pages tells us that the volume was printed by order of the House of Commons. That is the only publication information I have found.

I would like to create a source list entry and first reference note. The relevant sections in EE (3d ed.) seem to be Chapter 13, QuickCheck Models for Congressional Records (title from volume or traditional academic style) and sections 13.23-13.25, 13.35, and 13.53; or possibly Chapter 12, sections 12.84-12.88.
I'm not sure how deep I need to go into the weeds to properly cite the particular volume/sub-volume/sub-sub-volume I'm interested in, but I think it simplest to stick with the main volume number and follow one of the two Congressional Record models. These should be sufficient to lead another researcher to the correct volume.

Source list entry.

1. Volume Title method

Great Britain. Parliament. Accounts and Papers: Fifteen Volumes (5.) Relating to Education. 1835 Session, vol. 41. House of Commons, 1835. Image copy. Hathi Trust Digital Library. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044106543838 : 2019.

2. Traditional academic style

Great Britain. Parliament. Parliamentary Papers. 1835 Session, volume 41.  Image copy. Hathi Trust Digital Library. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044106543838 : 2019.

I'm only interested in the reports for two villages: Melbourn and Meldreth, found on page 58. 

First reference note, (with added explanatory note)

Great Britain, Parliament, Accounts and Papers: Fifteen Volumes (5) Relating to Education (House of Commons, 1835), 1835 Session, vol. 41, p. 58; image copy, Hathi Trust Digital Library (https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044106543838 : accessed 15 Feburary 2019). This is the first of three volumes from the 1835 parliamentary session containing responses to an enquiry made pursuant to an address of the House of Commons, dated 24 May 1833, regarding the number and types of schools in the villages and towns, etc. of England and Wales. 

An alternative approach would be to adapt the format in EE 12.88, "Series: With Named Parts," but it seems that this would complicate matters unduly.

Am I on the right track? Is it reasonable for me to use "House of Commons" as the publisher? Should it be in square brackets because it is not included in the title page? 

Thank you for your time and attention.
 

Submitted byEEon Sat, 02/16/2019 - 13:25

jcasbon, you've done an excellent job of tracking the background for this volume so that you and your readers can understand what it is you are citing. You are right in drawing an analogy to EE's models for U.S. Congressional records. You've also captured the essential details. EE would rearrange just a couple of details:

Great Britain, Parliament, Accounts and Papers: Relating to Education; Session 19 February–10 September 1835, 15 vols. ([London]: Printed for the House of Commons, 1835), 5:58, being vol. 41 of 51 vols. published for the session; imaged, Hathi Trust Digital Library (https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044106543838 : accessed 15 February 2019). This is the first of three volumes from the 1835 parliamentary session containing responses to an enquiry made pursuant to an address of the House of Commons, dated 24 May 1833, regarding the number and types of schools in the villages and towns, etc. of England and Wales. 

Reasons for the alterations:

  • The number of volumes in that subseries ("Fifteen Volumes") is not part of the title. Ditto for the "—(5.)—" that identifies which of the 15 volumes this one is. For multivolume works, the total number of volumes goes in the field after the title, with no italics. The exact volume is then stated before the page number in that field for "specific location." (See EE 12.69 "Multivolume Works: Basic Format") 
  • With these published congressional or parliamentary records, the session ID shown on the title page is part of the title.
  • In your page field, you cite "Vol. 41" before the page number, but that will leave readers wondering how a 15 volume set has a vol. 41. Therefore, after citing vol. 5 and page 48, you might add a note, drawing upon the data you sleuthed out, to say that this is vol. 41 of 51 vols. published for the session.
  • You are right that details not on the title page, which you add from personal knowledge or investigation, goes in square editorial brackets. That's appropriate for adding "London" as the place of publication. While the main title page does not cite the House of Commons, one of the subtitle pages does state that it was "Printed for the House of Commons." That would be the appropriate wording to use for the printing house.

As another analogy, you might cite this set as demonstrated for the U.S. series American State Papers (13.30–13.33; particularly 13.32). ASP also has several multivolume series within the whole.

 

Submitted byjcasbonon Sun, 02/17/2019 - 10:52

Dear Editor,

Thanks for your clarifying comments and for helping to parse out which of the words on the title page actually constitute the title. This was a confusing exercise for me, as there is no overarching title for the 51-volumes of the Parliamentary session. I did review the ASP examples before drafting my citations, and I see how they might be applied in this situation.

Regarding source citations, since there are two models: citing volume from title page and the "traditional academic style"; is one method preferable to the other, or is it a matter of personal preference? This will be used in the bibliography of a family genealogy book. The target audience is primarily members of the extended family, although copies will be donated to a few libraries as well. It seems to me that whichever method is used for the source citation should also be used for the first reference note, otherwise readers might not understand the link between the source citation and reference note. Although I appreciate the simplicity of the academic style, it does not reflect the complexity of the multivolume arrangement. On the other hand, the online source (Hathi) refers to the entire set as "Parliamentary Papers" and lists them only by volume and year, so it might be less confusing for readers if the citations reflected the simplified style.