Press and Parliament

Auckland Star, Volume XXXII, Issue 22, 26 January 1901, Page 1 (Supplement)

Press and Parliament

REMINISCENCES OF -EARLY DAYS

(All Eights Reserved.)

By C. 0. MONTROSE,

PART 111,

The occupants iof tne Press Gallery aimed at a. high standard of dignity. Most of them sported top hats and gloves and. silver-mounted walking sticks. Gus V.| of the "New Zealand Times," was in. the habit of buying a new bell-topper every Saturday and before night it was a shapeless wreck. The last time I saw Gus in Sydney he was a staid paterfamilias, with a small army of young Gusses, and ho filled the important position of town clerk in an aristocratic suburban borough.

We used to foregather in the old Press room, on the ground floor, now occupied by the northeast corner of the new Library building. I believe the room had originally formed part of the Legislative Council chamber in the primitive days of Parliamentary institutions. Dear old Alick Eeed, editor of the "Times," and formerly of Hokitika, who had received his newspaper training on the "John of Groat's Journal" (or was it "The Scotsman"?) was one of the leading spirits of that merry party. He was steeped in dry, caustic Scotch humour, and was generous to a fault. As a writer of classical English, with a vein of quaint satire, he was without a peer in New Zealand. He disappeared mysteriously from the deck of a steamer between Wellington and Lyttelton. Another shining light of the Press Gallery was John Moore Perrier, an Irish Frenchman, Bohemian, debonaire, witty, an inveterate practical joker, the "Histrio-Mnstix of dramatic criticism, a terror to ranting actors, uaid meretricious shows, and a, versatile writer of notes and comments. He was famous for having performed a feat in the way of dramatic criticism. He gave a column notice of a performance -which did not come off. He attended the rehearsals of a Shakesperian play, in which Mrs. Robert Heir (afterwards Mrs. Darrcll) was the leading actress, and wrote a highly exilogistic notice in anticipation of the actual performance. It happened at the last moment Mrs. Heir was indisposed, and another play had to be substituted for the ono announced, in the bills ami adver-

tisetneuts. Perrier being unaware of the change, his notice appeared iv the paper next morning", to the intense delight of the rival newspaper and the amusement of play-goers.

Perrier's licltis achates was Gus V., he of the crushed top-hats, swift.in shorthand, and a clover all-round reporter. A frequent visitor to the gallery was poor "Jock" Anderson, deaf a,s"a post, who conversed with you in .shrill tones that set your teeth on edge, and yelled in your ear as though the defective hearing was all on your side. It was whispered that in his earlier life "Jock" had been a distinguished member of the prize ring, and whenever anyone, dared to treat him with disrespect he acted np to his reputation. I was on more than one occasion a witness of his pugilistic prowess. Two men waited upon him one day to complain of a little par. "What's wrong vv'i it, mon?" yelled Jock. "It's a lie," replied one 01 them, "and unless we get an apology we'll horsewhip the editor."' "Yell what1. 1" seizingl one ill his powerful grasp, throwing him out of the room, and .sending the other after him;

"ye']] hae to mend your manners when ye come here," and he resumed 3;is leader as though nothing unusual had occurred. "Jock's" bete noir was Sir William Fox. The literary thunderbolts that hfi used to hurl at the devoted head of thr,t statesman woxild have furnished any enterprising legal practitioner with materials for libel actions. The contents' board of "The Chronicle" was a work of art. "The Vox Run to His Hole!" "The Skinnmg of the Fox," were among the most striking headings. His style was of the sledge-hammer sort, and he was a past master in the use of fiery invectives. Vet, withal, he bore no malice, and he was his own worst enemy.

Last, but by no means least, came Mr. K. T. Gillon, a prince among journalists, astute, practical, self-pos-sessed, tireless, :i good friend, but a bad enemy, a ferreter out of. news, knowing all tliut m;is going1 behind the scenes, penetrating even the se-» crets of the Cabinet, room, a merciless exposer of shams and hypocrisies. There have been Few editors in New Zealand whose articles have been so effective as his in their influence upon public opinion. More than once they were chiefly instrumental in bringing about a change of Ministry. He was the Alastor of Sir William Fox, who once applied an opprobrious terra to him, and never ceased to regret at, Gillon who knew the nooks and crannies of the Government buildings like an open road, had in some way obtained a complete forecast of a linancial Statement a day before it was actually delivered, and this provoked the wrath of Fox. In those days Prohibition had not developed into a vexed question, We looked upon the wine When it was red and we took our "pegs" like boon companions and brethren of the pen The Press Boom Tea and Coffee and Bread and Butter -Association, which was established two or three sessions apo had only an ephemeral existence. Great things wer e expected of it as a new development of the temperance movement, and it found much favour in the eyes of Mr Tom Taylor, Mr Smith and ether prominent advocates of total abstinence. But the Club did not survive the dissolution of Parliament, which also proved fatal to the political career of those two gentlemen. , There used to be rather too much "liquoring- Up" in the old Press Room. \t all hours of the day, and ofen far into the night, there was a continuous procession ot waiters between that place and Bellamy's. The array of "dead marines" and empty glasses on the tables became a grave public scandal. Of course, it was pointed to _ as _ a shocking- example of the shocking intemperance of the Press, though, as a j matter of fact they were as innocent as new-born babes. The room was the resort of crowds of "strangers," who had no other facilities for obtaining liquor from Bellamy's. In course of time the temple of the Pluses was turned into a sort of tap-room. The common device of the "strangers" was to personate some newspaper, sometimes a newspaper which had no existence. The number of "specials" coming from remote back blocks was a striking proof of the enterprise of their proprietors. At length the House Committee became cognizant of the scandal, and they caused a card to be hung up in the Press Room, bearing the following e dict: "No Drinks to be Served in tliis Room except on the Order of a Member." This was one of those opportunities which fell in with the mischievous humour of Mr John Moore Perrier. He g-ot a card exactly like th c official one, with the addition of the words "of the Press," and substituted it for the other. As the notification now read the authority to order refreshments was vested in "A Member of th c Press." The next member who was summoned from Bellamy's refused to serve liquor except ordered by a Member of the House. Perrier, in his blandest manner, declared that the messenger had misunderstood the order, and pointed to the card. The waiter apologised and brought the drinks. Perriers gravity during this funny incident would have excited the envy of an undertaker's mute. The explosion of laughter that followed was enough to shake the old rafters.

Away back in the seventies, stonewalling1 was a fine art. The great stonewall took place in 1876, on the Bill for the Abolition of Provincial Institutions, when Mr W. L. Rees, member for Auckland City, accomplished his famous feat of talking1 against time for eighteen consecutive hours, with brief intervals of rest, whilst his colleagues raised ing-enions points of order in order to enable him to recover his breath. Entrenched behind a pile of Blue Books, Hansard?, files of newspapers, and standard authorities on political economy and constitutional law, he read and commented till his lips cracked, and his voice was reduced to half audible, whispers. Meantime, members, wrapped in blankets, slumbered and snored on the benches.

It was on that memorable occasion that "Dick" Seddon made his mark as a born stonewaller. His style was vigorous, not to say rugged, for at that time he had not acquired those oratorical graces, polished dignity, and aplomb -svliich he has since learned by association with other great statesmen, and which sit so naturally on men charged with weighty responsibilities. He became a valuable lieutenant to his chief, Sir George Grey. The debate was marked by a dramatic incident, bearing some resemblance to the tragic act o£ the famous Edmund BuTke, -when lie flung- a dagger

on the floor of the House of Commons. Sir Maurice O'Uorke. who had been a staunch supporter of the Yog-el Ministry, in which iv 1573 he held the portfolio of Minister of Immigration, was so shocked at the connivance of the Government in the conspiracy to overthrow the Provincial Institutions that he deliberately left the Ministerial side and crossed the floor of the House, severing his connection with hjs former colleagues, whom he denounced as traitors to the liberties of the people.

Another hon. member, whose aspirates were often misplaced or ignored, was taking his turn at stonewalling, and being grovelled for lack of matter, had recourse to an electoral roll, commenting upon the names seriatim. He paused suddenly, as he turned over a leaf in the roll, and remarked, "Sir, weave gone through X, and we will pass on to L" (with a strong aspirate). His voice was drowned amidst peals of laughter, while he stood wondering where the joke came in. (This reminds me of another similar incident which, occurred on an occasion when, au important measure affecting- the native race was tinder discussion. Up rose a portly member, notorious for his philo-Maori sympathies, and, addressing the >Spcakei\ remarked, "Sir, I venture to say that if this Bill *>ecomes law, there will be a resurrection of the tribes throughout the whole of the IXorth Island." This prediction was received witli roars of laughter. "Aye, honourable members may laugh," he continued, "but I again solemnly warn this House that if this Hill is passed there will be a resuretion " The rest of the sentence was drowned in peals of laughter. "Insurrection?" suggested someone, and the prophet collapsed.)

The Parliamentary reporters had a lrctliod of showing- their resentment of all-night sittings. 'When the hands of the clock pointed to midnight, unless the subject of debate was of extraordinary importance, they gathered up their papers and vacated the gallery. On one occasion the pro-tt-sl. took the form of dropping on the floor of the House slips of paper, inscribed with forcible remonstrances. There is a tradition that one of the reporters, worn out with late sittings, upset—by accident, of course —a bottle of ink on Mr Speaker's head, which led to the erection of a canopy over the chair. The reader may be inclined to relegate this yarn to the region of myths, but the canopy is there at all events.

Mr George Jones, junr., "was the hero of a famous breach of privilege. In his newspaper, the Oamaru "Mail," he made a scathing attack on Sir Frederick Whitaker, Attorney-Gene-ral in the Atkinson Ministry, in conWection with the (acquisition of a large block of native land at Patetere. It i« all ancient history now, and no good purpose would be served by disinterring the details. I merely refer to it in order to introduce some comical incidents to which it gave rise. Mr Jones was hailed before the bar of the House, and charged with committing a gross breach of the privileges of that august body. Under the guidance of Mr John Sheehan he made a most ingenious and novel defence, quoting- extensively from Hansard in order to show that members of the House had frequently used language denouncing land-grabbing quite as strong as that of the article complained of, if not stronger.

Whilst awaiting sentence, the cxilprit was under duress in the quarters of the Serg-©an|Lrat-Aj-m.s. Perrier's bowels of compassion were moved at the' sufferings of the unfortunate captive. From time to time he solaced the . prisoner with whisky, sucked through the keyhole by means of a straw. He varied this at frequent intervals by reporting progress on imaginary proceedings in the House, in which the most dreadful penalties, including beheading, were supposed to have been suggested. The affair ended in smoke, as is the case ill breaches of privilege generally. Jones emerged triumphantly from the ordeal, and when the next vacancy occurred they elected him to Parliament, as a mark of their admiration of the bold stand he had made 'lor the freedom of the press.

A -word or two about the gallery work of those days. The competition for news was not slo keen as now. We did less work, but it was of bettex quality, and commanded higher remuneration. The telegraph and the telephone have done much to deteriorate literary style. Parliamentary, reporting is now done at high pressure, and by fewer hands. It was not unusual in the seventies for a staff of three or four reporters to be put on to a gTeat debate. They took turns ancl sometimes produced seven or eight columns in one issue. The earliest Hansards were mainly compiled froiq the newspaper reports. Parliament* ary papers furnished pabulum for the leading- articles. Lobby gossip was a prominent feature and occupied the exclusive attention of the ablest man on the staff.

If the Parliamentary reports are more curtailed in these days there is ample justification for the change. The cable places us in hourly touch with all parts of the globe, and the telegraphic columns of a first-class daiiy newspaper present a diurnal biograph of the world's history. Even the reports of proceedings in Parliament must be subordinated to the war news from South Africa and China. Moreover, the material of the Parliamentary debates has deteriorated in quality. How can a newspaper be expected to publish dreary reiterations of discussions at every stage of a Bill? In former times the rules of the House were like the laws of the Medes and Persians, and there was less laxity in the debates than there is now, when every member seems to regard it as incumbent upon him to talk for hia allotted space of twenty minutes. The ablest speakers in the early Parliaments used to put forth all their powers in their second reading speeches. The principles of a measure having been fully discussed and affirmed, the succeeding processes were matters of detail, like the building of a structure after the plans have been approved. We have a few men of mark in the House, but where are the compeers of such as Grey, Pox, Sewell, Weld, Featherston, Domett, Bell, Fitzherbert, Fitz-Gerald (the Demosthenes of Parliament), Vogel, Gisborne, Richmond, McLean, Hull, Whitaker, Maeandrew, Atkinson and Stout? It was impossible to dismiss the weighty, deliberated utterances of men of that mental calibre in a few bald paragraphs. We report less nowadays because there is less worth reporting-. Reminiscences of later times must be reserved for another opportunity, THE END.