PARLIAMENTARY REPORTING.

New Zealand Herald, Volume IV, Issue 1129, 27 June 1867, Page 3

PARLIAMENTARY REPORTING.

The questiQn of reporting proceedings _ in Parliament is the most recent contention thafc tho order of privilege has had with the

public intelligence. The theory of Parliament is exclusive in tliis respect, and its privileges are, in .ill matters of civil arrest, above tlic law. Hcnce, daring the whole of the eighteenth century the attempt to reproduce the proceedings of Parliament in a printed form, was visited with fino or imprisonment, sometimes both. The persons who suffered in this manner or who became illustrious in connection with Parliamentary reporting in English literature, are included within a catalogue of distinguished names ot which Dr. Johnson is the head. Then comes "Woodfal], Dod, Dodsley, Sir Phillip Francis, and others of less note. We need hardly mention Lord Campbell, Mr. Justice Talfourd, Mr. Justice Byles, Dickens, Dr. Smiles, in our own time. But wo have said enough to conduct our readers to the comprehension of what in largo communities in England is now understood, that by far the most important function of the public press is the reproduction, not merely of the results, .but the process of those august deliberations with which tlic peace of the world, as well as the prosperity of the British Empire, are connected. That a ministry should perceive the advantages of a public record of Parliamentary discussions is not surprising, and that a Parliamentary body should feel some jealousy of an organization from which the advantages to be derived by the- heads of offices arc so apparent, is not wonderful. It is unquestionable that where such an organization is in the pay and under tho control of a minister, its auxiliary power is very great, and the only means of balancing tho odds is, where the press supplies a similar organization of its own, sufficiently well paid to be independent, and well enough educated to look forward with a preference to the rewards of a professional success rather than those of a humiliating compliance with the desires of a minister or party. Now, that is exactly what obtains in London, and as the whole matter is at present uppermost in the minds of public men, we may, perhaps, be pardoned if we give some of tho results of a very extensive experience. From the commencement of the nineteenth century down to the year 1525, tho reporting that was done in tho House of Commons was rather an " account " of proceedings than an authoritative record. The reporters ofthose days were generally, with the exception of Mr. Gurncy's own stall', literary men with requisite education, but in every other respect of unequal powers. jSTotliing-is more completely determined than that two men of equal capacity are, or maybe, very tmequal in the results of their respective powers if limited to a given time. Indeed it is only practice and concert that has the equalizing influence. The consequence of this was that although Parliament in obedience to the public demand allowed reporters to be present, they ignored the reports of proceedings in newspapers, and one sometimes hears a question put to a member as to whether ho said this or that as reported in this or that newspaper. If there is any incorrectness in the report, the hou. member will bo at some pains to point it out, but if tho report is really eorrcet and thehoii. member impugns it, there is good reason for thinking that the lion, gentleman's parliamentary ihmc will not be brilliant.

But tlio progress of reporting, like almost every other industrial development, Las been marked by ■well-defined epochs. The first was the movement I'or Catholic emancipation in Ireland under o'Council, the second the Reform Agitation of IS3I in England, followed, as these were, by a number of minor and local agitations for the complement of those great measures. Another movement which produced a vast number of reporters was the Free Kirk movement in Scotland, and also thcFrec Trade movement inEugland, and the reason why these several movements have been so prolific of excellence of this kind probably is that each of them engaged and excited the talent and bent of the educated youth of each division of the United Kingdom at three distinct periods when popular passions reached to an unusual height. It must be kept in mind that reporting can never attain to excellence, unless where the reporters thoroughly identify themselves with the spirit of the occasion upon which they are employed. Mechanical expertness, though very important, is not the most important-of the requirements of a good report. A quickness of perception, and a rapidity of reproduction, are also necessary to au extent which few can appreciate or even understand. A great deal has been said about the manner in which the Parliamentary liansard in England is compiled, but we can assure those who have ventured an opinion on this subjcct that they have not the faintest idea of the real process of filtering, through which that work goes before completion. But one thing is quite certain that in reporting the speeches of members of Parliament it is done entirely independent of them, and a member might as well ask for a coronetcy in the Horse Marines, as a part in the revision of the proofs. Wo confess we look upon the attempt now being made to get up a stall of Parliamentary iicporters for the House of Assembly with distrust, for tlio real difficulties arc not seen, or if seen are not approached in a proper manner. We hear gentlemen talking of verbatim reports, as if the nonsense which must occasionally be spolcen in the Assent" bly, as is heard sometimes even in the House of Commons itself, deserves to be mummified in calfskin, and commemorated in printers' ink. It is very often judicious curtailment and not grandiloquent copiousness of diction that best discloses tlio meaning of a speaker. If men of the rightclass and stamp arc to be induced to accept the pay of the Government for the discharge of very onerous and responsible duties, some pains mnst be taken to recognize their usefulness, by increasing Ibe lacilities for their work". W r e think we ha\e experience sufficient to inform the Government that to be succjsslnl in this attempt they will do well to obtain the assistance of those who can best assist; them, we mean the proprietors of the leading journals in the colony who have men employed admitted to he in every way competent, and we need hardly say that the men themselves who will be employed must not be left out ot consideration. ]\luny ot tlio men oiiiplcryed m England on the reporting staffs of newspapers arc themselves professional men, and in two or three cases members of Parliament. Of course it is only the very ignorant,

both of the claims of the reporter to respect and of the English language who will offend against either. At the same time the materials of making a good working staff of Parliamentary reporters exist in the colour if handled properly. The difficulty arises not so much frominadaptibility in those materials as in the clumsiness with which they may be handled, which is calculated rather than bend them. "We repeat'that nothing can or will be done effectively without concerted action, and to obtain this something more will be required than expertness in joining the letters of a short hand alphabet or facility in the transcription ofthem. "We do not at present inquire as to the interpi'etatiou that the public will often put upon reporting which is under ministerial surveillance, which none would perhaps care about but the speaker whose flowers of rhetoric may be dipped, or the official who found that the revelation from the reporters' gallery would either deprive him of a place in prospectu, or endanger a little business in which he might be interested. "We think we see a Parliamentary contest coming which will make this matter of reporting of immense .importance, and the side which is most ably and trutlifully represented to the public will be sure to have the odds.