that "during the session of 1883 the late Government did dispense with reporters, and there is no Parliamentary Reporter for that year." Despite these alleged inaccuracies, McLeod concurred that previous sessions of the House of Assembly had "found that an official report was absolutely necessary, as they never could hold the then Opposition members to the statements which they had made in the course of debate without such a record." McLeod himself believed that, "under ordinary circumstances," it would "be better to have the debates published in the usual form, as it will have the effect of restraining honorable members of the Government, and holding them responsible for the language used by them in debate." In such "ordinary circumstances," he held, "as the Parliamentary Reporter is a record of the proceedings of the House, I think the system should be continued." Neil McLeod, however, preferred an alternate publication because of the absence of many, but by no means all, financial records and speeches by Liberal representatives in the Parliamentary Reporter. In Liberal narratives, these particular sources purportedly confirmed Conservative deficits as causation for the need to "amalgamate." During the third session, "many important debates were not reported at all, for the discussions were carried on with closed doors, the reporters having been turned out." Certain debates over Conservative deficits and debentures that contributed to passage of the "Amalgamation Bill" were far from "ordinary," yet "not a sentence of those debates were reported or published in the Parliamentary Reporter or anywhere else." McLeod estimated that "about one-fourth of the Journal of the House is made up of statements that contain returns and statements [that] have been ordered not to be printed, and as the speeches on those documents are published in the Parliamentary Reporter, it will be well for us to have those speeches, for they afford us the only information respecting those documents." Liberal delegates retorted that Conservatives had made accusations of similar omissions prior to "amalgamation" bills, further denied any collusion with editor William Crosskill in source deletions, and then defeated Underhay's proposal. Aside from the (ironic) publication of these "Printing Debates" in the Reporter, observations and positions of Crosskill and his reporters remain subjects of scholarly inquiry. In 1899, Crosskill published the first edition of a book that interwove "tourist attractions, history, and sociological features" into a Prince Edward Island fabric, revising the book over three editions to