PARLIAMENTARY REPORTS.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 4135, 22 June 1874, Page 3

PARLIAMENTARY REPORTS.

A debate recently took place in the New South Wales Parliament, with reference to the establishment of a Colonial "Hansard." In an article commenting upon the debate, the Sydney Morning Jlerald makes the_ following sensible remarks respecting the difficulty _ experienced in giving satisfaction to fastidious Colonial legislators "in the matter of reporting : Experience has shown that for newspaper purposes there is no one rule that can be laid down for all speakers, and the reporter who understands his business and has had large experience finds it necessary to treat different speakers differently. If any of our readers are accustomed to peruse the debates in the House of Commons, they must often have noticed that in the important speeches of men like Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Disraeli, or Mr. Lowe, there is nothing better to be done than to have a verbatim report, because the speeches have been carefully prepared. The language is exactly adapted to the thought, it is neither diffuse nor constrained, and nothing can be added or omitted with advantage" The form of the speech is as well worth preserving as the substance, because the form is really the representation of the speaker's mind. But then it is only in the case of a carefully prepared speech that this respect to the form is to be paid. Many members who spring to their feet on the spur of the moment, use a great many more words than are necessary —more than they would do if they had time for preparation, and repeat themselves, sometimes to their own disgust, and often to the weariness of their auditors. Nothing whatever is gained in such cases by preserving all the verbiage. If the run of the thought is fairly presented, and in the speaker's own words, as far as extemporaneous condensation will allow, justice is done alike to the speaker and the public. There are other speakers to be found, especially in our Colonial Assemblies, who are men of excellent practical sense, who have got on in this world, and achieved their position in virtue of their sterling qualities, who_ have something to say—some real contribution to give to the discussion of a subject—but who from defects of early education have not as much mastery over words as they have over thiDgs; they express themselves very incoherently, yet they are and they generally leave a pretty accurate impression on the mind o£ the hearer of what they meant

to say. It would be absurd in such cases to attach any special value to their forms of expression. What is wanted for the public, and in fact what they want for themselves, is that their meaning should be stated, and persons of this class often express their gratitude to the reporters for having put what they wanted to say much more clearly than they put it themselves. There is another class of speakers of the very opposite description. Possessed of more words than ideas, they have the gift of the gab, and are always exercising that gift ; words run away with them, and when they are mounted on a hobby they cannot get off. Because they can talk they do talk, and occupy a great deal of time in saying what is very little worth hearing. In such cases a very extensive condensation is necessary in the public interest. If whatever is really good is preserved, justice is done. It is obvious, however, that if a mechanical accuracy is not to be attempted, a certain amount of discretion and judgment must necessarily be exercised by the reporter, and it will, of course, often happen that his judgment does not exactly coincide with that of the speaker, and this is the cause of frequent complaint. Mistakes, of course will occur, and the wonder is that they are not more frequent. Some members speak very indistinctly, or mutter rather than speak, and it often happens that observations made with head downwards to read some notes, or with the face averted to speak to the House, or even to the gallery, are lost. As a rule, however, when members speak with a view to be reported, they take care to be heard distinctly. In the Melbourne Assembly, Mr. Duffy, when he was Prime Minister, altered his seat in the House with a special view of being heard to the most advantage. Instead of sitting close to the Speaker's right hand, and directly under the gallery, lie sat at the other end of the Ministerial bench, so as to place himself more in the middle of the House, and in a position to be better heard. From that point, when addressing the Speaker, his face was naturally turned towards the reporters' gallery, and therefore, without any special effort, lie was heard more distinctly than if addressing the chair from the Ministerial bench.